MANOJ SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER the Madhya Pradesh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch)Recruitment Rules, 1967, for short the Rules', were framed, diverse changes took place in the educational set-up of the State and care was taken, therefore, to meet the new challenge by amending the Rules in 1976. Provision was made by inserting sub-rule (4) in rule 13 of the aforesaid Rules and a new Schedule, Schedule I1i-A, was also inserted to deal with cases of "absorption" of Teaching Staff of "non-government colleges taken over by Government". A second and material change was made subsequently in 1980, when the amended sub-rule underwent a further change to include cases of "sports officers" to which category, the petitioner belonged. The short point which arises for my consideration in this case is whether these Rules can be given a total go-bye and an executive fiat can destroy the potency and validity of these Rules.

(2.) THE facts of the case bear a thumb-nail narration inasmuch as it is not disputed that the petitioner was serving as a Sports-Officer in Municipal Girls' College. Vidisha, which was taken over by the State Governemnt in 1983 and renamed as Government girls College, Vidisha. The petitioner's case is that in virtue of the provisions of clause 2 of the aforesaid Schedule III-A, she had the right to continue in service under the new set-up till such time as her case received the consideration of the Screening Committee. The relevant precision is as follows :

(3.) WHAT has happened in this case defies description because the arbitrary action of the functionaries of the Education Department of the State Government is grossly violative of the statutory provision afore-quoted. The petitioner's services are sought to be terminated. The petitioner is sought to be denied the right to wages earned by rendering service in the institution. Both grievances undoubtedly have a constitutional complexion as violation of Articles 16 and 23 is writ large on the Executive fiat projected in Annexures P/9 and R/3. The petitioner approached this Court for redressal of her grievances by filing a writ petition on 1-6-1984. During the pendency of the petition, annexure P/9 was issued on 25-6-1984 to establish a fictional fact, stranger than the strangest of the known wonders of the world. A deliberate attempt at para 4 of the letter, addressed by the Under Secretary in the Higher Education Department of the State government, to the Principal, Girls' College, Vidisha, is reflected in clear terms. It is stated that although on 1 -6-1984, this Court had ordered "status quo "in the matter to be maintained, it had to be clarified that vide orders dated 25-7-1983 and 19-9-1983; the services of the petitioner had been terminated. The order dated 25-7-1983 is Annexure r/3, which is in the nature of a circular letter, addressed by the Under Secretary in the higher Education Department of the State Government, to the Government Girls' college. Vidisha. It purports to carry a direction to the effect that those persons who were holding any post on ad hoc basis shall not be continued in service. This direction is patently violative of the aforesaid clause 2 and the action against the petitioner was being justified on the basis of this circular. However, Shri Mishra, petitioner's counsel has drawn my attention to Annexures P/10 and P/13 to submit that in so far as the petitioner was concerned, her services had not been factually terminated by the appropriate authority and the Principal of Government Girls' College, Vidisha accepted this position in the said Annexures.