LAWS(MPH)-2014-2-18

SATYADEV MISHRA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On February 11, 2014
Satyadev Mishra Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS were working in the Vidya Niketan Higher Secondary School, Bhadra Colliery District -Anuppur and challenging the action of the respondents in not absorbing the services of the petitioners after the school in question was taken over, petitioners have filed this writ petition.

(2.) A society by name Vidya Niketan Education Society has established the school in question. The school was receiving full grant -in -aid from the State Government and grant was paid to the institute on the basis of the sanctioned staff accorded by the Government. Petitioners were also working in the said school and it is the grievance of the petitioners that the State Government passed an order in the year 2002 taking over the institute in question and, thereafter, directed for absorption and regularization of the staff working in the school. Referring to the order of taking over the institute Annexure -P2 dated 7.8.2003, Shri Rajesh Chand stated that when the school was taken over by the State Government, in this order, the State Government already directed that all the staff and teachers working in the school should be absorbed by the Government. It is contended that the petitioners were working on the date, when the school in question was taken over. The services of the petitioners were not taken or absorbed by the Government School, which is now being run under the control of Zila Panchayat and in doing so, an error has been committed.

(3.) RESPONDENTS have filed a detailed reply and they point out that whenever a school is taken over by the State Government and action is taken for absorbing the staff working in the school, only such of the staff, members and teachers are absorbed, who are appointed to the institute after due approval of the State Government. By bringing on record the administrative instructions and guidelines in the matter as contained in Annexure -R1, learned counsel for the State Government argued that as the school was receiving grant -in - aid, the grant was provided to the sanctioned strength permissible in accordance with the order of the State Government and if a person is appointed beyond the sanction accorded by the State Government, then the said person is not entitled for absorption after the school is taken over.