AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Sharma, J.—The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7(i) and (ii):
(i) That the Respondents No. 1 and 2 may be directed to take over the services of the applicants as Lecturers/Non-Teaching staff from the date the Respondent No. 3 School has been upgraded or alternatively they may be appointed on contract basis on the basis of Ann. A-18 and A-19.
(ii) That the Respondents No. 1 & 2 may be directed to grant the applicants all the consequential benefits like arrears of salary, seniority etc. on par with those teachers, whose services have been taken over by the State of H.P. or appointed on contract basis on the basis of Annexures A-17, A-18 & A19.
In reply, Respondents No. 1 and 2 have taken the following stand vide para 3:
That the present O.A. preferred by the applicants is not maintainable due to the fact that State of H.P. vide Annexure A/15 has upgraded its own Govt. High Court Kiara to the standard Govt. Sr. Section School and has not taken over the privately managed Dr. Y.S. Parmar Public Sr. Secondary School Kiara, therefore, question of taking over the services of the applicants does not arise. It is submitted that Annexure A/17 prescribes norms with regard to taking over of any private institution provided the Govt. decides to do so but taking over of every private school is not mandatory to the State of H.P. In the instant case no such decision has been taken by the Govt. hence the applicants have no cause of action to file the present original application. It is made clear that the Govt. of H.P. is neither responsible nor has it ordered the closure of any of the private institutions, nor indeed is it responsible for rendering any teacher/staff unemployed. In most cases the private institutions could coexist and continue to do well provided it rendered educational services at par, if not better, than the corresponding Govt. institutions. So far as the question of appointing the applicants on contract basis is concerned, in this regard it is submitted that decision regarding appointment of teachers and ministerial staff of privately managed schools on special contract basis was taken by the Govt. in the year 2000 in favour of the staff of only such privately managed schools as had been closed prior to the year 1999 and whose staff had rendered jobless due to upgradation or opening of Govt. Schools at the same location and the said decision was applicable to such particular private schools only, therefore, the case of the applicants is not covered within the ambit of said notification. Copy of notification is annexed. In view of the submissions, the present O.A. is liable to be dismissed being merit less.
Rejoinder refuting the stand on behalf of Respondents No. 1 and 2 and reiterating the averments set up in the petition, has been filed.
The record reveals that vide notification dated 30.4.2004, Annexure A/15, Govt. High School Kiara, District Shimla, was upgraded from the level of High School to Sr. Secondary School. The case of the Petitioners is that at the time of issuance of notification dated 30.4.2004, Annexure A/15, a privately managed school known as Dr. Y.S. Parmar Public Sr. Secondary School (Respondent No. 3) was functioning at Kiara, District Shimla. It was being managed by Respondent No. 4, Management Committee. This school was imparting education in plus one and plus two classes and was affiliated to the H.P. Board of School Education.
The further case of the Petitioners is that vide notification dated 13.7.1994, Annexure A/16, pursuant to upgradation of Govt. High School Halog (Dhami), District Shimla, as Senior. Secondary School, privately managed Saraswati-Vidya Mandir Senior Secondary School, Halog (Dhami), which was also imparting education at plus two level was taken over and renamed as " Rajkiya Dhami Shahid Samark Senior Secondary School, Halog (Dhami) and the staff (teaching/non-teaching) of the said privately managed school was also taken over in accordance with the norms/policy issued by the Respondent-department vide letter dated 13.7.1994. A copy whereof has been brought on record by the Petitioners as Annexure A/17.
Thereafter, a policy decision was taken by the Government vide letter dated 5.2.2000, Annexure A/21, with regard to "Appointment on Special Contract basis of teachers, Lecturers, C&V (excluding TGT) and Ministerial staff on daily wages basis working in the privately managed schools in H.P. affected by the up-gradation/opening of Govt. schools at the same locations". On the basis of this decision, some similarly situate members of teaching/non-teaching staff of the erstwhile privately managed schools affected by up-gradation /opening of Govt. schools at the same locations moved the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal for taking over their services by the Govt. The original application (O.A.) filed by them was ordered to be treated as a representation, pursuant to which, the following order dated 6.1.2007, was passed by Respondent No. 1, a copy of which has been produced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and taken on record:
ORDER
The Hon''ble Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal vide its orders dated 5th December, 2006 in O.A. 3484/2006 had directed that the OA be treated as representation and the same may be decided within six weeks.
All the Applicants were present and heard today i.e. on 6th January, 2007. They were employees of Public Senior Secondary School, Sainj, District Mandi, which is affiliated to the HP Board of School Education. On 12.07.2006, Government High School, Sainj was upgraded as Senior Secondary School. Due to this up-gradation, all the students of Public Senior Secondary School, Sainj shifted to the Government Senior Secondary School, Sainj and Public Senior Secondary School, Sainj was closed, as a result of which all the applicants were rendered jobless. The applicants have further stated that due to the closure of Public Senior Secondary School, Sainj, their constitutional right of livelihood has been infringed.
The Applicants also submitted that on prior occasions also, similar situated persons were offered appointment on Special Contract. In support of their claim they also produced a copy of letter No. Shiksha-II (Ka) 2-2/1998, dated 5th February, 2000.
In view of the submissions made by the applicants, I am inclined to agree with the contentions made by applicants to some extent. Accordingly their representations are partially accepted. The Director Higher Education is directed to consider to appoint the applicants on contract as per the precedent and the eligibility of the applicants.
In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 1 to consider the case of the Petitioners for appointment on special contract basis in terms of notification dated 13.7.1994, Annexure A/16 and letter dated 5.2.2000, Annexure A/21, at par with similarly situate staff of the erstwhile privately managed schools in terms of the aforesaid decision dated 6.1.2007, within three months from the date of submission of a detailed representation supported by documents, if any, by the Petitioners along with copies of this judgment and the aforesaid Annexures A/15, A/16, A/21 and order dated 6.1.2007, within two weeks from today, after affording an opportunity of being heard to them/their duly authorized representative, if so advised.
The petition as also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms.