VIRENDRALAL B VAISHYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy involved in both these petitions is whether the petitioner is entitled to be regularised in service in the school where he was working on contract basis. This controversy has arisen because of the petitioners qualifications which, according to the respondents, are not equivalent to the B. A. , B. Ed. degrees that are a prerequisite for being regularised in service as a teacher.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present petitions are as follows:--- The petitioner was initially appointed in the Government High School, Fudam-Diu by the Collector as an Assistant Teacher on daily wage basis. The period of appointment was of 89 days. After the expiry of this period of 89 days, the petitioner was appointed afresh on the same basis for the period from 15th March, 1995 to 30th April, 1995. Again a break in service was given and the petitioner was appointed for a further period of 89 days from 26th June, 1995. This process of being appointed afresh for a period of 89 days continued for three years. On 24th September, 1997, the petitioner was appointed for the last time on the same basis for a period of six months upto 14th March, 1998. During this period, the juniors of the petitioner were regularised in service. However, the petitioners services were continued on contract basis.

(3.) THE petitioner, therefore, filed Original Application No. 75 of 1998 before the Mumbai Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal on 15th January, 1998 claiming regularisation in appointment and for a direction against the respondents to treat the petitioner as a trained graduate teacher in the prescribed pay scale. By virtue of an interim order, the petitioner was allowed to continue in service till disposal of the original application. On 12th March, 1999, the said original application was disposed of. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the qualifications of the petitioner were not suitable or equivalent to the B. A. and B. Ed. degrees. The Tribunal negatived the claim of the petitioner that the degree of Rashtra Bhasha Ratna conferred on him by Rashtra Bhasha Prachar Samiti, Wardha as equivalent to B. A. degree or that the other degree of Visharad conferred upon the petitioner by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was equivalent to the B. A. degree of a recognised University. The Tribunal also did not accept the petitioners contention that both the Shiksha Alankar degrees which were awarded to the petitioner by the Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur and the Shiksha Visharad were equivalent to the B. Ed. degree. Therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to be regularised in service as he was not qualified to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher. However, while disposing of the original application, the Tribunal directed the respondents to continue the petitioner in service till such time as he was replaced by a regularly selected candidate.