SHIV NARAYAN SAXENA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this petition with regard to payment of salary from 1-8-2003 and also other reliefs in the interest of justice.

(2.) PETITIONER Nos. 2 and 8 have been working as Shiksha Karmis Grade ii and rests of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 have been working as Shiksha Karmis grade III. Municipal Council, Ganj Basoda, respondent No. 4 issued an advertisement dated 2-9-1998 with regard to appointments and selection of shiksha Karmis Grade I, II and III in the daily News Paper, Dainik Bhaskar, dated 10-9-1998. In pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement the petitioners and other persons applied for appointment as Shiksha Karmis Grade II and III. As per the Rules, which were applicable at that time, named as Madhya Pradesh municipality Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998, hereinafter called 'the Rules of 1998'. A select list was prepared and the persons were called for interview including the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners were interviewed by the Selection Committee constituting three members of Education Committee and Chief Municipal Officer. The interview was held on 8th and 9th April, 1999 and the Selection Committee prepared a merit list of the candidates and it was sent for approval to the Deputy Director of Education, Vidisha and Block Education Officer, Vidisha. The Block education Officer vide his letter dated 24-9-1999 approved the merit list. Municipal Council decided to send the said select list for approval to the PIC. In the mean time elections of the Municipal Council were declared and due to enforcement of the model code of conduct the selection list could not be approved and after the election of body of the Municipal Council was constituted and the matter was placed before the Chairman on 1-1-2000. In the meanwhile the Government imposed a ban on appointment of Shiksha Karmis. Finally, the Education Committee of the Municipal Council on 25-7-2000 approved the selection of the petitioners and other Shiksha Karmis and sent the same to PIC. The PIC on 16-4-2001 approved the select list, thereafter, the chief Municipal Officer wrote to the Collector on 17-4-2001 with regard to the approval of the select list and vide order dated 23-4-2001 the Chief Municipal officer issued the appointment orders of the petitioners. It is mentioned in the order of appointment that the appointments have been made in anticipation of the approval from the Government. A letter was also sent to the Government and Collector for approval. The Collector vide letter dated 2-11-2002 addressed to Principal Secretary, Urban Administration recommended the case of the petitioners and other Shiksha Karmis with regard to approval of appointments. The Secretary vide letter 3-9-2003 informed the Collector that there was no provision for approval of the Government with regard to appointments of shiksha Karmis and the local body of the Municipal Council was competent to appoint the Shiksha Karmis. It appears that thereafter salary of the petitioners have not been paid by the Government on the ground that the appointments of the petitioners were contrary to Rules, power and authority of the Municipal council, hence the Municipal Council had to pay the salary to the petitioners.

(3.) THE Municipal Council - respondent No. 4 in its return stated that it selected and appointed the Shiksha Karmis as per the provisions of Rules of 1988 and after the appointment of the Shiksha Karmis they have been posted in various schools run by the Government under respondent No. 5, District education Officer and they have been working their. Subsequently, additional documents have been filed by the Municipal Council various circulars of the state Government. As per the aforesaid circulars the Government has to pay the salary of Shiksha Karmis to the Municipal Council. Hence, the respondent No. 5 stated that Government has to pay the salary to the petitioners.