SHIV RAJ PAREEK Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS bunch of writ petitions has been filed on common grounds by various incumbents who are seeking appointment on the post of teachers Grade-III on the basis of policy decision taken by the State for giving regular appointment as teacher grade III but the petitioners could not get the appointments because of the order passed by the State Government dated 31. 7. 2003, copy of which is placed on record as Annexure- R/1 in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12/2003, wherein it is stated that the Education Minister called a meeting of the District Education Officers and instructed that no steps be taken for appointing teachers out of the contract teachers till further orders.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, a scheme was floated by the State Government in the year 1985 for the appointment on the post of teacher grade III on contract basis on a consolidated salary of Rs. 400/- per month. Large number of persons including the petitioners were provided appointments on the posts of teacher grade III under the said scheme on the consolidated salary of Rs. 400/- per month. It is stated by the petitioners that during the summer vacation, their services were discontinued/terminated and on the commencement of the next academic year in the month of July, they were re-appointed. The petitioners, therefore, deprived of the salary of that period. It is stated that even experience certificates were issued to some of the petitioners by the competent authorities. In S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12/2003, the petitioners produced copy of the experience certificate to show that he was appointed on 10. 4. 1985 and his services were discontinued on 3. 1. 1992. ACCORDING to the petitioners, aggrieved against the low consolidated salary of Rs. 400/- per month, several writ petitions were filed before the High Court which were decided by the Division Bench by order passed in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2795/1987 wherein it has been held that the teachers appointed in Panchayat Samitis on a consolidated salary of Rs. 400/- per month are entitled to receive their salary in the regular pay scale of teachers grade III working under the State Government. ACCORDING to the petitioners, the State Government obeyed the order of this Court and started making payment of salary to such teachers in the regular pay scale of the post in question. The Division Bench also directed the State Government to impart training by correspondence course to such teaches who are working on the consolidated salary of Rs. 400/- per month. This direction was also complied with in the most of the cases but the petitioners were not given benefit of this training course (obviously because they were not given benefit of this training course (obviously because they were not in service ). The petitioners also stated in the writ petition that out of 11 petitioners in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12/2003, two petitioners Ram Kumar Joshi and Shiv Raj Pareek submitted S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2840/1995, which was referred to the larger Bench in view of the conflicting judgments of this Court and ultimately the said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court as not pressed. ACCORDING to the petitioners, the controversy involved in that writ petition was only with respect to payment of arrears of salary from the date of initial appointment and for imparting training by correspondence course. It is stated that about 80 of the similarly situated teachers were given opportunity to get the training by correspondence course but the petitioners who are few in number have not been given this opportunity to take the training by correspondence course, which is according to the petitioners, due to in action on the part of the State Government.

(3.) CHANGING the view, the State submitted in this subsequent reply that in fact the large number of petitioners jointly filed the writ petitions whereas factual aspect and merit of each of the petitioner is different, in view of the fact that some of the petitioners have worked only for few days, like only for 5 or 13 days and have been clubbed with who completed 240 days or even more. The respondents placed on record a chart showing the qualifications and working period etc. of the petitioners as Schedule-B. It is also stated that some of the petitioners are not having requisite educational qualifications and one of the petitioner in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6014/2003 (petitioner No. 5) is only secondary school pass. According to the respondents, by present writ petitions, the petitioners are in fact, want to have concession or relaxation in the Rules for getting appointments and that cannot be given by issuing directions of the court by issuing writ of mandamus. The respondents also controverted the petitioners' allegation of their harassment and allegations of malafides. Copy of this reply was provided to the other counsels of the other writ petitions.