RAJENDRA SINGH RAWAT Vs. NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although the facts mentioned in the four writ petitions regarding the merits of the claims made by the petitioners are not similar but a common preliminary objection has been raised by the Respondents about the maintainability of the Writ Petition in all the four cases. The objection of the Respondents is that the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Society do not fall within the scope of the term "State" as used under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, writ petitions filed by the petitioners for enforcement of their fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution are not maintainable. Since this preliminary objection is common to all these writ petitions, the same is being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of Writ Petition No. 2778/91 are that the petitioner who is a member of S.T, applied for appointment as L.D.C at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya District Tonk, in pursuance of advertisement issued by the Principal of the School on 15/7/90 (Annexure-1). The petitioner was called for selection along with other eligible persons. His assertion is that he has been selected by the Selection Committee and his name has been placed at serial No. 2 in the panel of the selected persons. Shri Raja Ram Meena, whose name was at No. 1 of the panel was appointed but he did not join and, therefore, by an order dtd. 8/1/91 the petitioner was given appointment as LDC in the pay scale of 950-1500. In the order of appointment the nature of appointment has been described as ad hoc and the term of appointment was fixed upto 30/4/91, even though the appointment was prescribed by Selection made by a duly constituted selection committee against the post reserved for members of the ST. The petitioner joined service on 14/1/91, when he was assured that his appointment will be continued and will be regularised. However, his service has been brought to an end with the expiry of the term on 30/4/91 The case of the petitioner is that the action of the Respondents in giving him appointment on ad hoc basis and for limited term despite his selection by Selection Committee, is arbitrary, unfair, irrational and unconstitutional. He has been forced to accept unconscionable terms of contract of service. The action of the Respondents in incorporating these arbitrary, conditions in the appointment order is opposed to public policy. While contesting the writ petition on merits the Respondents have in their reply asserted that the Respondent Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti is only a Society registered under the Society Act, 1960. It is not a statutory body created under a statute. It is neither "State" nor any other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) In writ Petition No. 6540/91 the petitioner has stated that he is a member of Scheduled Caste. He was appointed as Laboratory Attendant by order dtd. 30/6/90 issued by the Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Nasirabad Earlier to this, he had been working as an employee of Group 'D' from 2/8/82 The Principal of the School wrote to the Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyala Sangathan, Jaipur Region to confirm the appointment of the petitioner as Laboratory Attendant. However, apparently this was not done and, therefore, by order dtd. 14/11/91 of the Principal of the School, he has been reverted to Grpup 'D' post. The petitioner has challenged this action of the Respondents on the ground that the same has been taken in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and is also arbitrary.