M. P. VANJAKSHAMMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA — 1998 DIGILAW 432 (KAR)

G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners claim that they were working as part-time teachers in various State Government Institutions under the control, jurisdiction and supervision of tha concerned Zilla Panchayats/ Zilla Parishads. According to their own case, they had relief from service long back. They have approached this Court for directing the respondents to consider their representation dated 11-2-1997 (Annexure 'm'), dated 1-4- 1997 (Annexure 'm1') and dated 15-4-1997 (Annexure 'm2') for reinstatement in terms of the order of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition nos. 5188 to 5210 of 1992 (Annexure 'l' ). ( 2 ) ON going through the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 5188 to 5210 of 1992 (DD: 22-1-1992), the judgment of the Karnataka administrative Tribunal in Application No. 1245 of 1988 and connected matters (DD: 21-12-1988) and the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondents, I find it necessary to cull out some material facts, which led to passing of the aforesaid judgment, for proper adjudication of the issues in question. ( 3 ) IN order to teach the non-academic subjects like drawing, craft, music, etc. , which involves just 10-12 periods in a week in more than 2000 Government Schools all over the State, a provision was made to appoint part-time teachers on the proposal made by the Head of the institution to be approved by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions at the District Level and Joint Director of Public Instructions at the divisional Level much less on payment of consolidated pay ranging from rs. 50 to Rs. 100/- per month. These teachers were used to be appointed for a shorter period and relieved during intervening summer vacation. However, in the year 1987, several Heads of the Institutions sent their proposal for appointment of part-time teachers against full-time posts to teach academic subjects as well and the same were approved by the concerned authorities. ( 4 ) ACCORDINGLY, the respective Heads of the Institutions entrusted the part-time teachers with full-time work. Now it is a matter of record that some of those teachers had approached the Karnataka Administrative tribunal in Application No. 1249 of 1988, supra and connected matters and obtained certain directions. ( 4 ) ACCORDINGLY, the respective Heads of the Institutions entrusted the part-time teachers with full-time work. Now it is a matter of record that some of those teachers had approached the Karnataka Administrative tribunal in Application No. 1249 of 1988, supra and connected matters and obtained certain directions. The operative portion of the order reads thus.-"accordingly, we direct the respondents to take steps to fill up in accordance with the relevant rules the vacancies in which these applicants are now working as teachers and to allow these teachers to continue to remain in the posts each of them now hold until the vacancy is duly filled up. The respondents may consider the question of providing an opportunity to these applicants, if they have the prescribed qualifications, to apply for being appointed regularly in such vacancies. If any relaxation in the matter of maximum age limit in the relevant rules of recruitment are found necessary, the State will take a very sympathetic view and will make necessary amendments so that the same would enable such of these temporary employees who are over aged to apply for posts. If any of these applicants under any existing rule has a right to be regularly appointed as teacher, the State also would consider the same and will pass appropriate orders. The services of these teachers may be continued as stated above and they shall be paid salary and allowance during the period of summer vacation and as long as they hold their offices under this order". ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY, the State Government pursuant to the order of the tribunal, passed an order prescribing certain guidelines regarding payment of scale of pay/salary to the part-time teachers, which reads thus. (I) In all cases where part-time teachers had been working/appointed against full-time posts and where the KAT has held that they have been discharging full-time job, they are to be paid fulltime salary from the date as indicated by the KAT and it should be ensured that there is no break in their services during the months of April, May and June as was being done earlier. Payments for the said months also depends upon the type of orders passed by the KAT. Where it has been stated that they should be paid for earlier periods also, they will have to be paid. Payments for the said months also depends upon the type of orders passed by the KAT. Where it has been stated that they should be paid for earlier periods also, they will have to be paid. Where nothing has been mentioned, the payment should be restricted to period subsequent the date of filing of the applications before the kat by the teachers concerned and not earlier. (II) Since Government had recently agreed to filling up of vacant posts, action has to be initiated immediately to fill up the full-time vacancies on a regular basis in accordance with the rules relating to reservations, etc. Till recruitment is done and replacements are appointed against these posts, the part-time appointments may be continued to hold posts. (III) As regard part-time teachers working against part-time posts in accordance with the judgment of the Tribunal, Commissioner of public Instructions may authorise payment of their salaries for the months of April, May and June also and such payments in the absence of specific direction of the KAT covering retrospective periods will have to be only prospectively from the date of filing the applications before the Tribunal and not earlier. (IV) As regard the directions of the Tribunal to the effect that government should seriously think for ensuring tenure to part- time lecturers who have been in service for considerable period, necessary proposals may be formulated and forwarded to Government for examination. (V) In respect of the cases where part-time teachers are not being paid salary commensurate with the services rendered by them, commissioner of Public Instructions may consider each of such cases and ensure that they are paid part-time salary befitting the service rendered. (vi ). ( 6 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the Tribunal dismissed the applications on the ground of jurisdiction, when some teachers approached it for similar reliefs in the light of the judgment referred to above. Accordingly, those teachers approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 5188 to 5210 of 1992 for the reliefs granted in the application. (vi ). ( 6 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the Tribunal dismissed the applications on the ground of jurisdiction, when some teachers approached it for similar reliefs in the light of the judgment referred to above. Accordingly, those teachers approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 5188 to 5210 of 1992 for the reliefs granted in the application. On 22-1-1992, the said writ petition came to be disposed of with the following directions.-"in the said view of the matter, we consider that we would be justified in directing the respondents to reinstate such of the petitioners whose services have been terminated, in the very posts held by them, if they are still vacant or if such posts were not vacant but vacancies to which petitioners could be appointed are available with the respondents to appoint them in such posts however to consider their cases as well as along with other persons who will have applied in the normal course of recruitment to such posts and absorb them in the service as teachers by considering their suitability or eligibility after giving due weightage to the petitioners of their experience". ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, keeping in view the judgment of this Court, supra, the government amended the Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 by its notification dated 28-3-1992 by giving 0. 50% relaxation and weightage for each completed year of service which was again amended by notification dated 4-12-1993 by enhancing the weightage to 2% for every completed year of service as evidenced by Annexures-R5 and R6 to the statement of objections. ( 8 ) THEREFORE, as stated in the statement of objections filed on behalf of the State Government, in sum and substance, the part-time teachers can be recruited only under the following situations.-" (A) If a teacher has been appointed as a part-time teacher against a full-time post and discharging the duties' of a full-time teacher when he is relieved of his post during summer vacation or without appointing a regular teacher in accordance with duties to his post and if they have approached this Hon'ble Court before they are relieved from their post. (b) Regularisation of the part-time teachers can be made only during regular recruitment along with other applicants who have submitted their applications against recruitment notification. Teachers can be appointed only in accordance with the Recruitment rules and the relevant Reservation Rules in force. (b) Regularisation of the part-time teachers can be made only during regular recruitment along with other applicants who have submitted their applications against recruitment notification. Teachers can be appointed only in accordance with the Recruitment rules and the relevant Reservation Rules in force. It is submitted in this regard that the part-time teachers in addition would be given age relaxation and weightage of 2% for every completed year of service and if these part-time teachers are qualified in accordance with the Recruitment Rules they are eligible for regularisation". ( 9 ) THE respondents have further stated in their statement of objections that none of the petitioners is entitled to the relief as claimed in the writ petition inasmuch as none of the petitioners will fall under the above said category and moreover the petitioners have approached this court after a lapse of 10 years or more. ( 10 ) IN para 12 of the statement of objections, the respondents have set out the facts to show the petitioners ineligibility to secure the reliefs claimed. It has been disclosed therein that.-" (A) Petitioner 1 has worked as part-time teacher from 16-6-1982 to 31-3-1983 i. e. , for 9 1/2 months. She has approached this hon'ble Court after lapse of 10 years from the date of her relief. Hence, she is not entitled for reinstatement both on the grounds of merit as well as delay and laches. (b) Petitioner 2 has worked as part-time from 3-9-1984 to 31-3-1990 i. e. ,6 1/2 years. She has approached the Hon'ble Court after a lapse of 8 years from the date of her relief. Hence, she is not entitled for reinstatement both on merits as well as delay and laches. (c) Petitioner 3 has worked as part-time teacher for 10 months from 16-6-1998 to 10-4-1989. He has approached the Hon'ble court after a lapse of 9 years from the date of relief. Hence, he is not entitled for reinstatement on merits as well as delay and latches. (d) Petitioner 4 has worked as part-time teacher for 1 year and 10 months from 3-6-1983 to 31-3-1987. He has approached the hon'ble Court after a lapse of 11 years. Hence, he is not eligible for reinstatement both on merits and laches. (e) Petitioner 8 has worked as part-time teacher for 9 months and 5 days from 20-6-85 to 31-3-86. (d) Petitioner 4 has worked as part-time teacher for 1 year and 10 months from 3-6-1983 to 31-3-1987. He has approached the hon'ble Court after a lapse of 11 years. Hence, he is not eligible for reinstatement both on merits and laches. (e) Petitioner 8 has worked as part-time teacher for 9 months and 5 days from 20-6-85 to 31-3-86. He has approached the Hon'ble court after a lapse of 12 years from the date of his relief. Hence, he is not eligible for reinstatement both on merits and delay and laches. (f) Petitioner 6 has worked as part-time teacher from 1 year and 10 months from 1-6-1984 to 31-3-1986. He has approached the hon'ble Court after a lapse of 12 years. Hence, he is not eligible for reinstatement both on merits and on delay and laches. (g) Petitioners 7 and 8 have not worked as part-time teachers in any High School as per the certificate produced by them that they have worked in Government Hostels run by Social Welfare Department and Backward Class and Minority Departments and hence they cannot claim for reinstatement in the Department of public Instructions to any of the High Schools. (h) Petitioner 9 has worked as part-time teacher for 1 year 10 months from 18-6-1985 to 31-3-1987. He has approached the hon'ble Court after a lapse of 11 years. Hence, he is not entitled for reinstatement both on merits and on delay and laches. (i) Petitioner 10 has worked as part-time teacher for 1 year 10 months from 15-6-1989 to 31-3-1990. He has approached the hon'ble Court after a lapse of 8 years and hence he is not entitled for reinstatement both on merits and on delay and laches". ( 11 ) IN my opinion, after having gone through the various judgments and the facts of the case, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief as claimed in the writ petitions. The present writ petitions are also non-entertainable on the ground of gross laches. ( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY, these writ petitions are dismissed. --- *** --- .