Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 111 (MP)

Rajesh Kumar Bajpai v. Janpad Panchayat Niwadi

2011-01-25

RAJENDRA MENON

body2011
ORDER Rajendra Menon, J. 1. As questions involved in these petitions are similar and the facts are also co-related to each other, both these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. W.P. No. 3042/2000 was filed by the Petitioners, eleven in number, assailing an order-dated 8.5.2000 - Annexure P/1, passed by District Education Officer, Tikamgarh terminating the appointment of the Petitioners on the post of Shiksha Karmi, which was ordered on 20.7.98. It was the case of the Petitioners that they were appointed in accordance to the requirement of the statutory rules namely - Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 and after following the policy of reservation in all categories, particularly in the horizontal category -pertaining to special reservation for women. It seems that Respondent No. 5 found the appointment of 11 Petitioners to be contrary to the reservation and, therefore, passed the impugned order on 8.5.2000, terminating the services of the Petitioners after they had worked for about two years. Petitioners, in this writ petition, are also challenging the jurisdiction of Respondent No. 5 to take action on the ground that it is only the Collector, who is empowered to take action and not Respondent No. 5. 3. Challenging the aforesaid termination when the Petitioners filed this writ petition and when an interim order was granted to the Petitioners herein, Respondent Nos. 6 to 13, who were appointed after the termination of Petitioners' services, felt aggrieved by non-payment of salary to them inspite of their appointment. That being so, Writ Petition No. 5029/2000 was filed by Respondents 6 to 13, claiming salary on the post of Shiksha Karmi, to which they have been appointed after termination of the Petitioners of Writ Petition No. 3402/2000. 4. Having heard Shri Udayan Tiwari, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, along with Shri Grisham Jain, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3402/2000; Shri K.C. Ghildiyal and Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Counsel for the Respondents, it is seen that the order passed by the District Education Officer on 8.5.2000 was contrary to the principle governing reservation to special category i.e.... horizontal reservation, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477 ; and, in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of UP, 1995 (5) SCC 173 , so also an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 8.5.1996, vide Annexure P/22, in Writ Petition No. 2995/1995 (Ku. Priya Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others). 5. Even though the action of Respondent No. 5 is found to be contrary to the principle governing reservation, particularly the horizontal reservation to special categories, but due to subsequent developments that have taken place in the matter, now I am of the considered view that further interference into the matter is not warranted. 6. It is seen that after terminating the services of the Petitioners, in Writ Petition No. 3402/2000, holding that the ten posts have to go to women candidates, Respondents 6 to 13 were appointed, but when the interim order was passed by this Court and when the matter was again reconsidered by the competent authority of the State, it seems that ten more posts, which were lying vacant after the recruitment process, were utilized for adjustment of the Petitioners in Writ Petition 5029/2000. They were also granted appointment and after working for about three years as Shiksha Karmi, all the Petitioners in both the cases have been regularized in service and thereafter their services have been absorbed as Assistant Teachers in the regular establishment of the Respondents' department. 7. All the Petitioners are now working as Assistant Teachers, there is no necessity now to enter into the controversy on merits as the controversy stands settled by the Respondents themselves by adjusting the ten Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5029/2000, in the vacant posts which were existing in the department and as all the Petitioners and Respondents have been absorbed in regular service, it is not necessary to disturb them as they are working in the regular establishment for all these period and sufficient posts are available for adjusting them in the respective category, in which they are working. 8. In that view of the matter, Respondent State Government and the department concerned are directed not to disturb the Petitioners and to permit them to work on the post, to which they have been absorbed in accordance with law. 8. In that view of the matter, Respondent State Government and the department concerned are directed not to disturb the Petitioners and to permit them to work on the post, to which they have been absorbed in accordance with law. However, if the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5029/2000, have not been paid salary from the initial date of appointment, the Collector of the district concerned is directed to ensure that payment for the work done from the initial date is granted to each of the Petitioners, in Writ Petition No. 5029/2000, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid, both the petitions are allowed. The impugned order-dated 8.5.2010 - Annexure P/1, filed in Writ Petition No. 3402/2000, is quashed, in view of the law laid in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra), Anil Kumar Gupta (supra) and Ku. Priya Gupta (supra) and the Respondents are directed not to disturb the Petitioners in any manner whatsoever, until required for any other reason in accordance to law. 10. Accordingly, both the petitions stand allowed and disposed of to the extent indicated hereinabove.