Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1164 (MP)

Neeti Chaurasia v. State of M. P.

2012-11-08

RAJENDRA MENON

body2012
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming the relief of appointment as Lab Assistant under the circulars of the State Govt. The petitioner was appointed as part-time Teacher on 22nd July, 1991 in the respondent No.3 school and he continued as such till 21.9.99 when his services were terminated. The State Govt. had issued the circular dated 20th July, 1998 with a view to give an opportunity to the part-time Teachers for appointment to the post of Lab Assistant, providing that relaxation in M.P. Non Gazetted Class III Education Services (Non-Collegiate) Recruitment and Provisions Rules, 1973 will be made and selection will be done by the Central Selection Board on the basis of eligibility/merit and the part-time Teachers found suitable in that selection will be appointed in the concerned educational institution. The Circular further provides that if more number of part-time teachers are found suitable than the sanctioned post, in such a case posts will be sanctioned as per requirement. Another circular dated 23.5.98 was issued by the State providing that those who fulfill the minimum eligibility condition of Lecturer will be invited for selection through interview for the post of Lecturer in Vocational Education Scheme and those part-time teachers who cannot be appointed as Lecturer in Vocational Education Scheme, they all will be appointed on the post of Lab Assistant on fulfillment of minimum eligibility condition. The petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 986/99 seeking the appointment as Lab Assistant and the Tribunal disposed of the original application by order dated 20.1.2000 with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner expeditiously in terms of the aforesaid circulars. The Tribunal on 20.1.2000 passed the following order in favour of the petitioner: “The applicant had come aggrieved against the order dated 21.9.99 (Annexure A/1) by which his appointment, as a part-time teacher had been dispensed with from the post of Lecturer after a duly selected candidate has come on the post. The applicant has no vested right to remain posted on this. Further his claim for consideration as per policy Annexure A/10 for appointment on the post of Laboratory Assistant is an independent relief. The applicant has no vested right to remain posted on this. Further his claim for consideration as per policy Annexure A/10 for appointment on the post of Laboratory Assistant is an independent relief. The petitionis, therefore, disposed of with an observation that the respondents should as also agreed by the Goverment Advocate, consider the case of the applicant for the appointment as Laboratory Assistant in the light of the policy Annexure A/10 and A/11. Since the applicant has been rendered jobless from September 1999, it is further observed that the consideration as per circular Annexures A/10 and A/11 should be done in an expeditious manner.” 2. The aforesaid direction of the Tribunal was not complied with which compelled the petitioner to file Contempt Petition M.A. No. 10/2001 before the Tribunal. The contempt petition was entertained by the Tribunal and in reply to the contempt the respondents took the stand that appointment to the post of Lab Assistant will be given only after the appointment to the post of Lecturers are made in all subjects of vocational education. Considering the stand of the respondents the Tribunal disposed of the contempt petition by noting as follows:- “In reply respondents have admitted that as per policy laid down Annexures A/10 and A/11 is the process regarding appointment to the post of Lab Assistant will begin only after the appointments to the post of Lecturers are made in all the subjects of Vocational education. It is also submitted that looking to the number of part-time teachers more posts of Lab Assistants will be required. In that connection the Director of Public Instruction has sent a proposal to the State Govt. for necessary action. Copy of which is placed at Annexure R/1. It is submitted that Government has also sent a proposal to the Department of Finance vide proposal No. 476/B-3 dated 16.2.2001 for active consideration as per note sheet Annexure R/2. Looking to the reply submitted by the respondents an observation made by this Tribunal for consideration of the applicant as per Circular Annexure A/10 and A/11 is being carried out and therefore no case of contempt has been made out against the respondents as held by the Apex Court in the case of J.S. Parihar Vs. Ganpath Duggar, (1996) 6 SCC 291 . Petition is therefore dismissed.” 3. Even thereafter the petitioner’s case for appointment as Lab Assistant was not considered. Ganpath Duggar, (1996) 6 SCC 291 . Petition is therefore dismissed.” 3. Even thereafter the petitioner’s case for appointment as Lab Assistant was not considered. Therefore, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 802/2002 before the Tribunal in March, 2002 which has been transferred to this Court on abolition of the Tribunal and has been registered as W.P. No. 19116/03. The aforesaid sequence of events indicate that the respondents have not passed any final order in the matter accepting or rejecting the petitioner’s claim for appointment in terms of the Circulars dated 20.1.98 and 23.5.98. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the order of the Tribunal dated 20.1.2000 in O.A. No. 986/99 and order dated 27.10.01 in M.A. No. 10/01 the case of the petitioner has not been finally decided so far and further that the petitioner was terminated on 21.9.99, but those who were continuing in service as part-time teachers in different schools even upto 2003 have been given the benefit of appointment as Lab Assistant. 4. Since the petitioner’s case relating to the appointment as Lab Assistant in terms of the Circular of the State mentioned above, is yet to be considered and decided by the concerned officer, therefore, it would be proper to issue a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner’s claim for appointment as Lab Assistant in terms of the Circulars of the State mentioned above within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. While deciding the petitioners case, the concerned respondent No. 2 will keep in mind the fact that the petitioner had approached The tribunal promptly and the Tribunal’s order dated 20.1.2000 in O.A. No. 986/99 and 27.10.2001 in M.A. No. 10/2001, which were passed in favour of the petitioner, have remained undisturbed. 5. The writ petition is according disposed of. 6. No orders as ot costs.