BALDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment since identical questions of law and fact are involved in these cases. The whole problem has arisen because the Government in spite of repeated judicial pronouncements continues to make appointments to certain posts in violation of the rules. Persons are appointed to various posts without following the recruitment and promotion rules.

(2.) AFTER serving for a few years, these persons who are appointed without following the prescribed procedure clamour that they should be regularized. This problem can be best avoided if the Government strictly follows the rules. In the last 15 years, various governments have framed Schemes for appointments of teachers. Some of these Schemes are Voluntary Teacher Scheme, Vidya Upasak Scheme, Para Teacher Scheme, PTA teachers scheme etc. etc. The entire purpose of framing these schemes is to avoid making recruitments to the post of teachers by following the procedure prescribed by law. Under normal Recruitment and Promotion Rules, the appointment of teachers is made through the H.P. Public Service Commission. Under the schemes, which have been framed in violation of the rules and are against the very ethos of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, appointments are made at a very lower level some times at the school level. The Selection Committees consist of people who can be easily manipulated.

(3.) IN the present cases, we are concerned with teachers employed on contract basis in various schools in Himachal Pradesh. The teachers were appointed on contract basis as College lecturers, School lecturers, JBT teachers, C and V teachers and Lab attendants. When the contractual period of appointment of these teachers had ended or was coming to an end, a large number of cases were filed against their termination or proposed termination before the learned H.P State Administrative Tribunal. A full bench of the learned Tribunal was constituted to decide the following important questions: -(i) Whether tenure/contract employment in Education Department of the State is in substance the same as ad hoc appointment? (ii)In case point No.1 is decided in the affirmative, whether they are entitled to continue till the time they are replaced by regularly appointed employee? (iii)Whether such employees are entitled to the benefit of regularization at part with the ad hoc teacher? (iv)Whether the policy to engage the teachers on contract/tenure/ad hoc basis, despite the existence of Recruitment and Promotion Rules for appointment of persons on regular basis is, legal, valid and in consonance with the constitutional mandate. (v)Whether the cut off date of March 31, 1994 mentioned in the policy for regularization is arbitrary and whether it meets the test of objectivity? - The learned Tribunal answered question No.1 by holding that the employees hired on contract basis would have the same status as ad hoc or tenure teachers. Question No.2 was decided by holding that the petitioners were entitled to continue till they were replaced by regularly appointed persons in accordance with the recruitment and promotion rules. Question No.3 was answered by holding that in terms of the policy of the Government only those teachers who had completed three years service on 31.3.1994 or who were already in employment on 31.3.1994 and had completed three years service thereafter would be regularized in the Department of Education. Question No. 4 was answered by holding that though the State was only entitled to make stop gap arrangements and to that extent, the appointments may be valid but the continuation of such appointments for a long period of time is definitely not desirable and definitely illegal. Question No.5 was answered by holding that the fixation of the date as 31.3.1994 could not be said to be arbitrary or illegal.