C and V Unemployed Trained Teachers Assn. vs State of H.P. and Others

Sanjay Karol, J.—This petition has been filed by C & V Unemployed Trained Teachers Assn. with the following prayer:

i) To quash and set aside the impugned policy decision with the directions to the Respondents/State to consider and take the fresh policy decision regarding the appointment of Vidya Upasaks and till then, no post be filled;

ii) Directions may be issued to the Respondents to fill the posts of C& V teachers from the trained persons available with them on the basis of batch wise seniority;

iii) That in the alternative, directions may very kindly be issued to the Respondents to fill the posts of Vidya Upasaks from the trained teachers available in the State, may be on the terms & conditions as issued for filling the posts of Vidya Upasaks, first on the basis of the batch wise seniority of C&V teachers and then if the posts are left vacant from matriculates;

iv) Directions may be issued to the Respondents to produce the entire record;

v) Any other and further order which this Hon''ble Tribunal may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case be given to the applicant association and against the Respondents.

The petition was originally filed before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 30.3.1999. The same now stands transferred to this Court. No interim order was passed in this petition.

It is the Petitioner''s grievance that the Respondents have formulated a Policy for appointing Vidya Upasaks against the posts reserved for Classical & Vernacular teachers which posts are to be filled up only in accordance with R&P Rules. The members of the Petitioner''s Association who are unemployed but otherwise fully eligible have been deprived of their right for consideration for appointment to the posts of C & V teachers.

At the outset I may point out that except for a bald averment made in the petition nothing has been placed on record to substantiate this fact. Be that as it may be, the Respondents in their reply have categorically denied the assertions made by the Petitioner. The State, as per the return, has formulated a Policy of selecting Vidya Upasaks through an authorized Agency i.e. the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Board. The persons who are to be appointed as Vidya Upasaks have to be Matriculates. The Respondents have specifically denied that Vidya Upasaks have been appointed against the post of Classical and Vernacular Teachers.

Unlike the Vidya Upasaks, C & V category of teachers, according to the Respondents, are specially trained to handle classes at the Secondary level.

Policy decision to appoint the Vidya Upasaks was taken in the year 1999. Much water has flown since then. Valuable rights have accrued in favour of the persons who already stand appointed.

It would be open for this Court to interfere in a Policy decision if the same is contrary to Law, irrational, arbitrary or whimsical.

According to Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Policy is arbitrary as the Government has ignored the claim of already trained teachers available in the State. This fact by itself, in my considered view, would not amount to arbitrariness. Different Schemes have been prepared for different category of persons. The State Govt. had taken a Policy decision to select 1.70 lacs number of candidates having a minimum qualification of matriculation. They were to further undergo training during the course of their engagement. Special induction course was prepared by DIETs which was specially developed for Vidya Upasaks. They are to be paid fixed honorarium of Rs. 2500/- per month for a period of 5 years and only after successful completion of their training are to be absorbed as regular primary teachers on regular scale. Prior to that they are also given an option of improving their educational qualification up to the level of Plus two as per NCTE norms. The scheme has been specially evolved for such like persons. Hence in my considered view, there is nothing arbitrary about the same.

Consequently, the present petition stands dismissed.