AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.S. Singh, J.—Upon hearing the learned Counsel on both sides, it appears to me that the Petitioner-Association made a prayer for a direction to the Respondents for affording appointment to its members numbering 30 in the post of Matriculate Teachers under the Directorate of Education, Manipur, as done to the other persons who are similarly situated with the members of the Petitioner-Association vide Govt. order/letter dtd. 30.5.1996 issued by the Director of Education(S), Government of Manipur, as in Annexure A/6 to the writ petition, relating to the Government''s approval and appointment of 27 fresh candidates as Assistant Teachers in the scale of pay of Rs. 975-1660/- p.m.
According to the writ Petitioner-Association, it is an Association formed by the fresh recommended candidates under a related D.P.C. proceeding held from 5.10.93 to 14.10.93 for appointment of Matriculate Teachers/Assistant Teachers in the Schools of school-less villages under the Directorate of Education(S), Govt. of Manipur, and there are 30 members in the Roll of the Association at present. As far back in the year 1987 154 posts were created for opening schools in the school-less villages in hill areas of Manipur, and accordingly adhoc/substitute teachers and some other recommended candidates in other D.P.C. proceedings were appointed by the competent authority till the regular appointment is/was made. In due course of time a regular D.P.C. was held from 5.10.93 to 14.10.93 for selection of candidates from amongst the substitute/adhoc teachers as well as fresh candidates in the post of* Matriculate Teachers for schools in the school-less villages in hill districts under the Directorate of Education(S), Manipur. As per the minutes of the said D.P.C. 75 posts were held by the substitute teachers and 57 posts had already been filled up by the candidates recommended by a special D.P.C. conducted under the directives of the Supreme Court of India and this Court, and accordingly it was the view of the D.P.C. that the filling up of 57 posts was a temporary arrangement and as and when clear vacancies were available in the Government Schools, those candidates appointed against the posts of school-less villages would be transferred and posted at the vacancies of the other Govt. schools so that all the 57 posts of Assistant Teachers of schools of School-less Villages may be available for the villages specified under the related Govt. order. Considering these existing facts and circumstances of the case the said D.P.C. recommended 120 candidates in all for appointment and out of which 46 candidates were from the substitute teachers and 74 teachers were from the fresh candidates, as seen from the document marked as Annexure A/2 to the writ petition. After completion of the said D.P.C. proceedings, recommendation as well as the D.P.C. proceedings were submitted to the Government as far back as in the year 1993. As the Government did not take any action in the matter a Lawyers Notice was submitted on 28.7.1995 to the Director of Education(S), Govt. of Manipur - the 2nd Respondent herein -, demanding immediate issuance of the appointment order on behalf of the selected 74 fresh candidates. Thereafter the Respondent - Government-conveyed its approval to the appointment of 27 recommended fresh candidates in the schools of schoolless Villages in the Hill Districts against certain existing vacancies, which shall be later on adjusted against the posts of school-less village schools as and when vacancies are available. It is also the case of the writ Petitioner that the appointment of 27 fresh candidates out of 47 recommended fresh candidates is quite arbitrary, unjust, unfair and it is pick and choose policy and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The appointment order as in Annexure A/6 to the writ petition clearly shows that the appointment given to those 27 fresh candidates are in the Govt. Schools where vacancies are lying and not in the school-less village schools, and as such it is a discriminatory action of the Respondents that remaining 47 recommended fresh candidates including the present 30 members of the Petitioner-Association have not been given appointment in the same manner afforded to the said 27 recommended fresh candidates. According to the writ Petitioner-Association the said D.P.C. proceeding held from 5.10.93 to 14.10.93 and its recommendation thereof is neither cancelled nor rejected or altered from the end of the Respondents and on the other hand the Respondents started acting upon the recommendations of the said D.P.C. by giving appointment both to the substitute and fresh candidates and as such the Respondents are bound to act upon the said D.P.C. resolution and to afford appointment to the remaining fresh candidates who are the members of the Petitioner-Association.
The case of the writ Petitioner-Association is contested by the Respondents by filling counter affidavit and contending inter-alia that the Government of Manipur created 154 posts of Matriculate teachers for School-less Village Schools in the hill areas vide Govt. order dtd. 20.4.87 and dtd. 30.5.84. Out of 154 posts of Matriculate Teachers, 57 posts have already been filled up on regular basis and further discovered that there was some excess appointments of teachers on adhoc/substituted basis of Matriculate Teachers against these sanctioned posts. The concerned D.P.C. recommended 120 candidates, of which 46 candidates are from amongst the substituted Teachers and 74 candidates from the fresh candidates and out of which the Government approved 71 candidates only as there were only 71 vacant posts available. Out of these, 44 were from substituted and adhoc teachers and 27 were from fresh candidates, and thus the recommended and approved substituted teachers altogether 71 had been given regular appointment, and as such all the 154 posts had been filled up by the Govt. in various orders mentioned in the counter-affidavit, (i.e. 57 posts + 44 posts + 27 posts + 22 posts + 4 posts =154 posts). According to the Respondents the present 30 members of the Petitioner-Association are fresh candidates recommended by the D.P.C. but they were not approved by the Govt. and as such they have no right to claim for appointment as Matriculate Teachers, in the Schools of School-less Villages.
Sri Rabei, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Association, submitted that unequal treatment has been made out by the Respondents to the present 30 members of the Petitioner-Association, inasmuch as 27 fresh candidates, who were similarly situated with the said members of the Petitioner-Association, have been given regular appointment on the basis of the recommendation of the related D.P.C. but this opportunity was/is not afforded to the members of the Petitioner-Association. It is also clear case of discrimination meted out by the Respondent-Government in the matter of appointment. At the hearing Sri A Jagatchandra Singh, Addl. Govt. Advocate, contended that all the vacant posts of 154 Matriculate Teachers had already been filled up on regular basis as per the direction of this Court made in Civil Rule No. 5/93 and Civil Rule No. 632/93, and also on the recommendation of the concerned D.P.C. The members of the present Petitioner-Association being fresh recommended candidates, whose cases were not approved by the Government, and they have no right to claim for appointment as Matriculate Teachers/Asstt. Teachers in the Schools of the School-less Villages as of right and the Government cannot be directed by the Court for creation of posts for accommodation of these Petitioners. Supporting the case of the Respondent Sri Jagat Chandra Singh, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, had relied upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in The Commissioner, Corporation of Madras Vs. Madras Corporation Teachers'' Mandram and others, and contended that the Court cannot give direction to create a post or to prescribe the minimum qualification for the post, and such direction cannot be given by the Court or the Administrative Tribunal as the matter is one of legal or executive policy of the Government. In my considered view it is an accepted and established principle of law and no one can go beyond it. But the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the said case, namely, Commissioner, Corporation of Madras (supra) do not help the case of the Respondents as the same is not applicable in the instant case for the following reasons.
It is an admitted position that the said DPC recommended 74 fresh candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers/Matriculate Teachers in the Schools of School-less Villages as detailed below:
----------------------------------------------------- DISTRICT No. of candidates Substitute Fresh 1. Senapati (Kang/Ma) Mao - 4 10 Kang - 9 15 2. Ukhrul 5 12 3. Churchandpur 21 12 4. Chandel 7 20 5. Tamenglong - 5 ----------------------------------------------------- 46 74 -----------------------------------------------------
Out of 74 recommended candidates, the Respondents took up the case of 27 recommended candidates and they have given appointment to those 27 candidates in the posts of Matriculate Teachers/Assistant Teachers as seen in the document marked as Annexure A/5 to the writ petition. In the appointment order of 31.5.96, as in Annexure A/6, it is clearly stated that their appointment may be adjusted later on against the posts of School-less Village Scheme as and when available. It is also an admitted position that the 154 posts which are meant for Schools of School-less Villages have been filled up under the related directions/orders as mentioned above. On further perusal of materials available on record it has been revealed that the Respondents had started giving appointment to 27 fresh candidates even in the year 1996 though the related D.P.C. was held from 5.10.93 to 14.10.93. In view of the above position, I am of the view that the Respondents did not cancel the said D.P.C. proceedings till today. On perusal of the document marked. Annexure A/5 to the writ petition it is clearly established that the Govt. conveyed the approval to the appointment of 27 recommended fresh candidates in the School-less Village Schools in the hill districts against clear vacancy which may be adjusted later oh against the posts of School-less Village Scheme as and when available. The Respondents could not satisfy this Court in the matter and the reason why* the case of the said 27 fresh recommended candidates was considered and approval for appointment was made for them and why not for the other remaining recommended fresh candidates out of the said 74 candidates. On perusal of the available materials on record and also after proper application of my mind in the matter I am of the view that it is a clear case of discrimination inasmuch as 27 candidates who are similarly situated with the present members numbering 30 of the Petitioner-Association, have been afforded regular appointment and whereas the case of the 30 members of the Petitioner-Association have been left out by the Respondents without any justification. This Court need not go more into the matter as this Court is of the view that the action of the Respondents appointing 27 candidates out of the 74 fresh recommended candidates and leaving aside the case of the members of the Petitioner-Association is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
For the reasons and observations made above, I hereby direct the Respondents to treat the present members of the Petitioner-Association equally with those of the 27 fresh recommended candidates, who have been given regular appointment, by affording regular appointment to them also within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and order. In the result this writ petition is allowed but no costs.