Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 399 (MP)

M. P. Shikshak Sangh v. State Of M. P. And Ors.

2000-04-18

FAKHRUDDIN, N.G.KARAMBELKAR

body2000
ORDER Heard. 1. The Madhya Pradesh Shikshak Sangh has filed this petition as 'Public Interest Litigation', on the ground of non-fixation of the pay-scale of the Laboratory-Assistants of the Government aided private institutions; vis-a-vis the Lab. Assistants of the Government Schools in the similar pay-scale and redesignation them as Assistant Teacher (Science) at par with the employees of the Government institutions and for payment of all the consequential and ancillary benefits to them. 2. The State has filed reply denying the claim. The State has also submitted in the return that some individual Lab. Assistants of the Government aided private schools had filed writ petitions before this Court being W.P. No. 1408/96 (Shiv Dutt Sharma v. State), W.P. No. 1411/96 (Prabhu Dayal Saini v. State), W.P. No. 1433/96 (Baijnath Sharma v. State), and W.P. No. 1434/96 (Mahendra Pal Singh Jadon v. State of M.P. and Ors.). These petitions were decided by a common order dated 3-3-98. The Court held that the petitioners are not at par with the Assistant Teacher (Science) working in the Govt. Schools. Shri Chaturvedi, learned Govt. Adv. submitted that individual petitioner had approached this Court and the matter has been decided; the petition does not survive as Public Interest Litigation. Individual persons have approahced the Court and matter has been decided. It is also pointed out that Public Interest Litigation was filed in the year 1997 whereas the individual petitions were filed in the year 1996. 3. Shri Brijesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relied on a decision of the Apex Court reported in (2000) 2 Supreme Court Cases - 42 (Chandigarh Administration and Ors. v. Rajni Vali (Mrs.) and Ors.), in which it is clarified that the proportion in which the additional burden will be shared by the Chandigarh Administration and the Management of the school will be in accordance with the grant-in-aid scheme applicable to the School from time to time. 4. In our opinion, where the individual persons had approached the Court and once the matter has been decided by the Writ Court, Public Interest Litigation as such does not survive as it amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to our notice a decision/ order of this Court passed in W.P. No. 372/96 (Ravindra Singh Tomar and Ors. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to our notice a decision/ order of this Court passed in W.P. No. 372/96 (Ravindra Singh Tomar and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors.) decided on 30-9-99, which goes to show that individual petitioners have approached this Court and it has been observed in Para 8 that : "In view of the aforesaid legal position, the respondents are directed to decide the cases of the petitioners in the light of Rule 33 of the Revised Grant-in-aid Rules for Non-Government Educational Institutions in M.P. within a period of three months and if it is found that the petitioners are eligible for the benefits, they shall be granted the benefits accordingly." 6. The order passed in W.P. No. 372/96, Ravindra Singh Tomar's case (supra) does not finally adjudicate the matter on merit. In this case directions have been given to the respondents to decide the case of the petitioners in the light of Rule 33 of the Revised Grant-in-aid Rules for Non-Government Educational Institutions in M.P. within a period of three months and it was further directed that if it is found that the petitioners are eligible for the benefits, they shall be granted the benefits accordingly. Counsel for the State pointed out that the petitions bearing numbers W.P. No. 1408/96 (Shiv Dutt Sharma v. State), W.P. No. 1411/96 (Prabhudayal Saini v. State), W.P. No. 1433/96 (Baijnath Sharma v. State) and W.P. No. 1434/96 (Mahendra Pal Singh Jadon v. State of M.P. and Ors.), on the points decided earlier were not brought to the notice of the Court at the time of considering W.P. No. 372/96, (Ravindra Singh Tomar's case supra). 7. Be that as it may, since individual persons had approached this Court and the matter has been decided by this Court, in our opinion, this is not a fit case for exercising the jurisdiction of Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition fails and is dismissed. C.C. as per rules.