Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 246 (GAU)

Harunal Rashid v. State of Assam & Ors.

2013-04-05

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2013
1. This order will dispose of WP(C) Nos. 6666/2010, 6842/2010, and 4781/2011. 2. Facts and reliefs sought for in the three writ petitions being identical, those were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Facts of the three cases may be briefly noted. WP(C) No. 6842/2010 being argued as the lead case, facts of the said case are narrated at the outset. WP(C) No. 6842/2010 4. Twenty three petitioners have joined together and have jointly filed the present writ petition. Petitioners are Assistant teachers in LP and ME Schools, the details of which have been furnished in the writ petition. All the petitioners were appointed prior to provincialisation of their respective schools. However, at the time of provincialisation, their names were not included in the list of teachers whose services were provincialised. Thus, they became what came to be known as “dropped teachers”. 5. Being aggrieved by the non-provincialisation of their services, petitioners approached this court by filing writ petition. Similar writ petitions were filed by other dropped teachers. During the pendency of the said batch of writ petitions, Government of Assam in the Education (Elementary and Secondary) Department issued notification dated 13.1.2003 laying down certain criteria to be adopted with prospective effect for adjustment of dropped teachers. Amongst others, the following conditions were laid down: - (i) The teachers should have put in at least two years of continuous service immediately preceding the taking over of the concerned schools by the Government, (ii) Appointment of the dropped teachers should have been duly approved by the concerned District Elementary Education Officer/ Inspector of Schools. (iii) The appointment of dropped teachers by the Managing Committee should have been commensurate with the enrolment of students in the school at the time of provincialisation. 6. The aforesaid batch of writ petitions were finally disposed of by this court by common judgment and order dated 1.9.2003, which has since been reported in 2008 (3) GLT 229 (Jiban Ch. Deka and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors.). This court took note of the above notification dated 13.1.2003 and as agreed to by learned counsel for both the sides, condition No. l was modified to cover cases of all dropped teachers in service as on the date of provincialisation of the concerned school. Deka and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors.). This court took note of the above notification dated 13.1.2003 and as agreed to by learned counsel for both the sides, condition No. l was modified to cover cases of all dropped teachers in service as on the date of provincialisation of the concerned school. Likewise, the requirement of approval of the appointments of dropped teachers by the concerned authorities of the Education Department as per condition No. 2 was modified by production of any document acknowledging rendering of service by dropped teachers. Accordingly, this court directed that the cases of the petitioners in each of the cases should be considered in terms of the notification dated 13.1.2003 subject to the modifications indicated above. Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam was directed to constitute a High Power Committee to examine the cases of those petitioners and such other cases as may be sent to the said Committee from time-to-time by this court. It was directed that the committee upon due verification of the cases before it shall prepare district wise list of dropped teachers eligible for regularization in terms of the norms and criteria laid down as per direction of the court. The eligible persons on being identified shall be arranged in the district wise lists in order of seniority. Appointments against available posts in each district shall be made on the basis of the lists prepared. All the appointments would be prospective but would carry the benefit of past services for the purpose of computation of pensionery benefits. 7. Thereafter, the Government constituted a Screening Committee. Directions were issued to the district officers to submit lists of dropped teachers of the concerned districts. In addition, advertisement was issued in the newspapers requiring the dropped teachers to submit their particulars before the designated authorities. Accordingly, petitioners submitted their particulars. Their names were also included in the lists prepared for the respective districts. Screening Committee took their interview on different dates. Thereafter, the High Power Committee recommended the names of dropped teachers as per notification dated 13.1.2003 as modified by the judgment in Jiban Ch. Deka and published the district-wise seniority list of dropped teachers. But the names of petitioners did not figure in the said list. 8. Aggrieved by the exclusion of their names, petitioners filed writ petitions before this court. Deka and published the district-wise seniority list of dropped teachers. But the names of petitioners did not figure in the said list. 8. Aggrieved by the exclusion of their names, petitioners filed writ petitions before this court. Writ petitions were also filed by similarly placed dropped teachers. 9. In the meanwhile, Government of Assam in the Education Department filed a review petition before this court for review of judgment dated 1.9.2003 in Jiban Ch. Deka, which was registered as Review Petition No. 2.0/2009. It was contended that the provision of rule 5(3) of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977, which provided that teachers in venture schools may be retained subject to their possessing minimum qualification and age and further subject to such teachers putting in. at-least two years of continuous service immediately preceding the taking over of the school, was not placed before the court. It was contended that modification of condition No. l of the notification dated 13.1.2003 to the extent of including the cases of all dropped teachers serving at the time of provincialisation of the concerned schools was in conflict with the provision of Rule, 5(3) as mentioned above. 10. This court in the order dated 4.3.2009 observed that understanding the requirement of having put in at-least two years of continuous service immediately preceding the taking over of the concerned schools by the Government to have been introduced by the Government decision as reflected in the notification dated 13.1.2003, the court with the consent of the parties had directed in paragraph 4 of the judgment dated 1.9.2003 that instead of condition No. l as appearing in the notification dated 13.1.2003, all the dropped teachers in service on the date of provincialisation of the schools should be considered. Acknowledging that such direction was contrary to the statutory prescription and, therefore, ought not to have been passed, the court observed that the said error had occurred as the statutory rules to the above effect was not brought to the notice of the court. The court, however, took the view that the review prayed for might effect the entitlement of several persons who had in the meanwhile been selected for regularization though they might not have completed two years of service prior to the date of provincialisation of the schools. The court, however, took the view that the review prayed for might effect the entitlement of several persons who had in the meanwhile been selected for regularization though they might not have completed two years of service prior to the date of provincialisation of the schools. The court, therefore, took the view that the earlier decision regarding modification of condition No. l of the notification dated 13.1.2003 should be taken as the tentative opinion of the court. The State of Assam was directed to place before the court the names and particulars of all such dropped teachers who had not completed two years of service as required and yet their names had been included in the list of dropped teachers eligible for regularization as selected by the High Power Committee. 11. In the subsequent order dated 11.12.2009, the court recorded that an order of the court in conflict with a statutory provision may require correction but there was a human problem associated with the legal question that had arisen in the case. About 133 persons who became eligible for consideration for regularisation as LP and ME school teachers, being dropped teachers, in terms of the judgment dated 1.9.2003 now faced the prospect of being excluded from the process of regularization if the review prayed for was granted. Those persons had rendered long years of service and were awaiting their regularization as dropped teachers for over a decade. The court observed that a possible remedy to the situation could be the exercise of power by the State Government under Rule, 7 of the aforesaid Rules, if required even as a one time measure. The court, therefore, directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Secretary, who should take an informed decision in the matter and thereafter place such decision before the court. 12. Following the above order, an affidavit dated 30.7.2010 was filed by the commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam. Education (Elementary) Department. In the said affidavit it was stated that a decision was taken to relax the provision of Rule, 5(3) of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977 in respect of 130 dropped teachers of Lower and Upper Primary Schools as a one time measure. Along with the affidavit, a copy of notification dated 17.7.2010 issued in this regard along with the list of 130 teachers were enclosed. Along with the affidavit, a copy of notification dated 17.7.2010 issued in this regard along with the list of 130 teachers were enclosed. Accordingly, the court by order dated 10.8.2010 closed the review petition as not pressed. 13. In the meanwhile, Government had issued another notification dated 16.7.2010 reconstituting the High Power Committee for examination of all pending cases of dropped teachers of LP/ME/MEM/ High Schools/Higher Secondary Schools including non-teaching staff. 14. The batch of writ petitioners filed by the petitioners arid others came up for consideration before this court on 16.11.2010. This court referred to the judgment rendered in Jibon Ch. Deka and a subsequent decision reported in Tapan Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors., 2008 (3) GLT 234 and disposed of those cases vide order dated 16.11.2010 by holding that cases of those candidates who did not respond to the advertisement issued by the High Power Committee should be closed as there cannot be any endless exercise. In respect of those cases rejected by the High Power Committee, reasons of such rejection were directed to be communicated to the concerned candidates. If any case of dropped teachers of LP / ME schools with which the said proceeding was concerned were pending, the High Power Committee was directed to carry out necessary exercise in terms of the notification dated 16.7.2010. The said decision dated 16.11.2010 is referred to as the decision in the case of Luleswar Hazarika. 15. Grievance of the petitioners is that their cases for provincialisation were not considered by the Government on the ground that they did not serve for two years on the date of provincialisation of the respective schools. Contention of the petitioners is that pursuant to the order of this court dated 11.12.2009 in Review Petition No. 20/2009, the Government of Assam had considered the cases of similarly placed persons and relaxed the requirement of having two years service on the date of provincialisation. The Government had regularized the services of those teachers by way of provincialisation by invoking the provision of rule 7 of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977 and, therefore, similar relief should also be granted to the petitioners. 16. Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Education (Elementary) Department filed an affidavit on 7.9.2011. The Government had regularized the services of those teachers by way of provincialisation by invoking the provision of rule 7 of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977 and, therefore, similar relief should also be granted to the petitioners. 16. Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Education (Elementary) Department filed an affidavit on 7.9.2011. Stand taken is that services in elementary schools are regulated by set of Act and Rules called the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1974 (Act) and the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977 (Rules). As per Rule 5 (3) of the Rules, teachers in venture schools may be retained at the time of provincialisation provided such teachers had put in atleast two years of continuous service immediately preceding the taking over of the school. Following judgment of this Court in Jiban Ch. Deka, High Power Committee was constituted to examine all pending cases of dropped teachers. List of dropped teachers prepared were published in the leading newspapers of the State. Government of Assam in the Education Department on due verification of the reports of the High Power Committee found that names of teachers who did not complete the mandatory requirement of two years of service as Assistant teacher in their respective schools prior to provincialisation, which is the requirement of Rule, 5(3) of the Rules, were included in the list of dropped teachers. Accordingly, the State filed review petition for review of the judgment in Jiban Ch. Deka. In terms of the order of this court dated 11.12.2009 passed in the review petition, State Government issued notification dated 17.7.2010 relaxing the provision of Rule, 5(3) of the Rules in respect of 130 dropped teachers as a one time measure. Cases of the writ petitioners were rejected by the High Power Committee as they did not have the requisite two years of service prior to provincialisation of the schools. Notification dated 17.7.2010 was issued to deal with an extraordinary situation as stated in the review petition. Rule 5(3) was relaxed in respect of 130 school teachers as one time measure. Any further relaxation of the said Rule will open the flood gate of ineligible teachers appointed by the Managing Committee to claim appointment as dropped teachers. State Government cannot relax Rule 5(3) of the Rules any further. 17. Rule 5(3) was relaxed in respect of 130 school teachers as one time measure. Any further relaxation of the said Rule will open the flood gate of ineligible teachers appointed by the Managing Committee to claim appointment as dropped teachers. State Government cannot relax Rule 5(3) of the Rules any further. 17. During the course of hearing, petitioners have filed an additional affidavit mentioning the dates of their appointment and provincialisation of the respective schools. WP(C) No. 6666/2010 18. Petitioner was the third Assistant teacher in the concerned school. When the school was provincialised, services of the other two teachers were taken over by the Government excluding the petitioner. According to the petitioner, his case was forwarded to the High Power Committee for consideration but he was not informed of any decision, taken by the High Power Committee in this regard. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 19. Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department has filed an affidavit dated 19.5.2011. Stand taken in the affidavit is that High Power Committee after due scrutiny finalized detailed statement of dropped teachers but observed that there was no dropped teacher in LP Schools. This court in the judgment and order dated 1.3.2007 in Tapan Kr. Das directed the Government to re-verify the cases of dropped teachers of LP Schools. Accordingly, the Government again constituted a High Power Committee for examination of all pending cases of dropped teachers in provincialised LP Schools. High Power Committee after due scrutiny found 192 teachers as dropped teachers, of LP Schools. In so far the case of the petitioner is concerned, it was placed before the High Power Committee on 18.11.2010. His name was not recommended by the High Power Committee as he had not completed two years of continuous service immediately preceding the taking over of his school by the Government. 20. Petitioner in his re-joinder affidavit stated that his case was duly forwarded by the district authorities to the Government. Placing reliance on the decision of this court in the case of Jiban Ch. Deka, he seeks provincialisation of his service. WP(C) No. 4781/2011 21. The four petitioners are Assistant teachers of LP Schools. Their services were not provincialised at the time of provincialisation of their schools. Thus they became dropped teachers. 22. They have based their case like the petitioners of WP(C) No. 68427 2010. Deka, he seeks provincialisation of his service. WP(C) No. 4781/2011 21. The four petitioners are Assistant teachers of LP Schools. Their services were not provincialised at the time of provincialisation of their schools. Thus they became dropped teachers. 22. They have based their case like the petitioners of WP(C) No. 68427 2010. The only difference in their cases is that they were informed vide separate communications dated 31.3.2011 by the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department that their names were placed before the High Power Committee. Since as per Rule they had not completed two years of continuous service immediately preceding the taking over of the concerned schools by the Government, therefore their names were not recommended. 23. Respondents have not filed any affidavit in this case but have relied on the departmental affidavit filed in WP(C) No. 6842/2010. 24. Heard Mr. P. J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 6842/2010, Mr. S. Nath for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 6666/2010 and Mr. F.U. Borbhuiya for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 4781/2011. Also heard Mr. M.R. Pathak and Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Assam for the respondents in all the cases. 25. Mr. P. J. Saikia, learned counsel leading the argument for the petitioners submits that the impugned action of the respondents in not provincialising the services of the petitioners by relaxing the requirement of two years continuous service on the date of taking over of the concerned schools, which was done in the case of 130 teachers similarly placed like the petitioners as a one time measure, is clearly arbitrary and discriminatory, thus violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submits that after the subsequent judgment of this court in Luleswar Hazarika, the court had made it abundantly clear that if there are any cases of dropped teachers of LP/ME Schools pending with which the said proceeding was concerned, the High Power Committee should carry out similar exercise in terms of notification dated 16.7.2010. Therefore, there can be no justification to deny the benefit of provincialisation to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had not completed two years of continuous service at the time of provincialisation of the schools. 26. Mr. M.R. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the Government is bound by the statute. Therefore, there can be no justification to deny the benefit of provincialisation to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had not completed two years of continuous service at the time of provincialisation of the schools. 26. Mr. M.R. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the Government is bound by the statute. The requirement of two years continuous service as on the date of provincialisation to entitle a teacher to claim provincialisation of service is a statutory requirement under Rule, 5(3) of the Rules. The State had relaxed the said requirement in respect of 130 dropped teachers as a one time measure to meet the extraordinary situation arising out of the court order in Jibon Ch. Deka which was because of the failure to produce the statutory Rules before the court and the concession given by the State Counsel for modification of condition No. l in notification dated 13.1.2003 to include all serving teachers whose services were dropped at the time of provincialisation, in the process of provincialisation. As it was a one time measure, State is not in a position to go for further relaxation as it may open the flood-gate of ineligible teachers appointed by the Managing Committee to claim provincialisation of their services as dropped teachers. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petitions. He has also produced the record. 27. In his brief reply, Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the review petition filed by the State for review of the judgment in Jibon Ch. Deka was closed as not pressed and, therefore, the judgment in Jibon Ch. Deka as explained by the subsequent judgment in Luleswar Hazarika still stands. As such, the State cannot deny provinicialisation of the services of the petitioners on the plea that they did not have two years of continuous service immediately preceding provincialisation of the concerned schools. 28. Submissions made have been considered. Record produced has also been perused. 29. Before proceeding further, it will be useful to briefly refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Act has been enacted to provide for provincialisation of elementary education in the State of Assam and to bring the teachers and staff of elementary schools under the management and control of the State Government. 29. Before proceeding further, it will be useful to briefly refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Act has been enacted to provide for provincialisation of elementary education in the State of Assam and to bring the teachers and staff of elementary schools under the management and control of the State Government. The Rules have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of teachers of the elementary schools which have been provincialised under the Act. Rule, 5 of the Rules lays down the conditions for taking over of elementary schools. In the present case, we are concerned with Sub-rule (3) of Rule, 5, which reads as under: “(3) The teachers in venture School may be retained at the time of taking over if they possess the minimum qualification and age for recruitment provided that such teachers have put in at least two years continuous service immediately preceding the taking over of the School and provided further that the prescribed ratio of students and teacher is maintained in the School.” 30. Rule, 7 deals with power of Government to dispense with or relax any Rule. It provides that where the Government is satisfied that the question of any of these Rules may cause undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense with or relax the requirement of that Rule to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. 31. It is in the above context that the notification dated 13.1.2003 is required to be construed, which was issued to streamline the procedure of adjustment of dropped teachers. Condition No. l of the said notification dated 13.1.2003 provided that the teachers must have put in at-least two years of continuous service immediately preceding the taking over of the concerned schools by the Government. The said condition was as per the requirement of Rule, 5(3) of the Rules. 32. However, this aspect was not placed before the court and the State Counsel also agreed to the submission of the counsel for the petitioners that condition No. 1 may be read as covering the cases of all dropped teachers in service as on the date of provincialisation of the concerned schools. 32. However, this aspect was not placed before the court and the State Counsel also agreed to the submission of the counsel for the petitioners that condition No. 1 may be read as covering the cases of all dropped teachers in service as on the date of provincialisation of the concerned schools. The relevant portion of the order of this court in Jibon Ch. Deka is as under: - “(6) In view of the above, this bunch of cases will stand now disposed of with the following directions: (i) The cases of the petitioners in each of the cases will be considered in accordance with the norms, criteria and eligibility conditions prescribed by the policy document dated 13.1.2003 subject to the modification in Condition Nos. 1 and 2, as stated above. (ii) The Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, shall within 7 days from today, constitute a Committee to examine the cases of the petitioners in the present bunch of cases and such other cases, as may be referred to the said Committee, from time-to-time, by this court. As the said Committee will be executing and implementing the policy decision taken by the state, this court considers it appropriate to leave it to the discretion of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam to decide on the composition of the Committee with the suggestion that the Committee may be a high powered committee constituting of 3 members and the present Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department may act as the Member Secretary. (iii) The Committee, upon due verification of the cases before it, shall within 6 months from the date of its constitution, prepare district wise list of “stopped teachers” eligible for regularisation in terms of the norms and criteria laid down as per direction No. l above. The eligible persons, on being identified, shall be arranged in the district wise lists, in order of seniority. (iv) Suitable adjustments in the placements assigned in the district wise lists, as may be required, upon consideration of such other cases which may be referred to the Committee in the future shall be made by the Committee. (v) Appointment against available posts in each district shall be made on the basis of the lists prepared. (vi) All appointments made would be prospective but will carry the benefit of past services for the purpose of computation of pensionary benefits.” 33. (v) Appointment against available posts in each district shall be made on the basis of the lists prepared. (vi) All appointments made would be prospective but will carry the benefit of past services for the purpose of computation of pensionary benefits.” 33. When it was found out by the departmental authorities that the above direction of this court relating to condition No. 1 of notification dated 13.1.2003 was in conflict with the statutory provision, the State filed a review petition. As has already been noticed in the earlier part of this judgment, this court acknowledging the error which occurred m. Jibon Ch. Deka, however, took the view that any review as sought for would effect the entitlement of several persons who had in the meantime been selected for regularisation though they might not have completed two years of service prior to the date of provincialisation of the schools. The court, therefore, took the view that the directions issued earlier should be taken as the tentative opinion of the court. Subsequently, this court observed that considering the human problem associated with the review petition, the possible remedy to the situation could be exercise of the power vested in the State Government by Rule, 7 of the Rules, if required even as a one time measure. 34. The State Government thereafter took the decision to relax the provision of Rule, 5(3) of the Rules in so far the requirement of having two years of continuous service as on the date of provincialisation was concerned in respect of 130 dropped teachers of Lower and Upper Primary Schools as a one time measure. This was contained in the Government notification dated 17.7.2010. In view of above development, this court closed the review petition as not pressed. 35. In the subsequent decision in Luleswar Hazarika, this court passed the following order: - “(i) The candidates who did not respond to the aforementioned advertisement issued by the High Power Committee cannot now claim that their cases have been ignored or not responded to by the High Power Committee. There cannot be any endless exercise. The High Power Committee has already carried out the same. (ii) So far as the cases which have been rejected by the High Power Committee, the candidates involved in the said cases are entitled to know the reason for such rejection. There cannot be any endless exercise. The High Power Committee has already carried out the same. (ii) So far as the cases which have been rejected by the High Power Committee, the candidates involved in the said cases are entitled to know the reason for such rejection. Although such reasons may be available in the report of the High Power Committee but it will be appropriate for the Government to furnish and/or provide reason to the individual candidates. Necessary communication in this regard shall be made to the candidates whose plea of being dropped teachers has been rejected. (iii) In spite of the exercise that has been carried out by the High Power Committee, if there are still any pending case of dropped teachers of LP/ME Schools with which the present proceeding is concerned, the High Power Committee shall carry out necessary exercise in terms of the said notification dated 16.7.2010. (iv) The Government in the Education Department shall take necessary follow up action in terms of the list of dropped teachers that has already been published in the newspaper on 1.3.2008.” 36. Thus, this court had directed that if there were any pending cases of dropped teachers with which the said proceeding was concerned, the High Power Committee should carry out the necessary exercise in terms of notification dated 16.7.2010 whereby the High Power Committee was reconstituted to examine all pending cases of dropped teachers. 37. Respondents have not denied that the cases of the petitioners are similar to those of the 130 dropped teachers whose services were provincialised vide notification dated 17.7.2010 by relaxing the requirement of Rule, 5(3) of the Rules as a one time measure. There is no reasonable explanation or justification as to why power of relaxation was not similarly invoked in the case of the petitioners. The only explanation given in all the three cases is that the petitioners did not serve for two years prior to the date of provincialisation of the respective schools. This is also the stand evident from the nothings in the file. Such reason is already there which is the cause of this continuous litigation for more than a decade and really is no justification. The question is why the power of relaxation, which was invoked in respect of 130 dropped teachers, has not been exercised in the case of the petitioners? Such reason is already there which is the cause of this continuous litigation for more than a decade and really is no justification. The question is why the power of relaxation, which was invoked in respect of 130 dropped teachers, has not been exercised in the case of the petitioners? What is the basis of differentiation between the petitioners and those 130 dropped teachers? Respondents are unable to give any answer to the above questions. All that is said is that the power of relaxation was invoked as a one time measure and cannot be invoked any further as it may open the flood gate of similar claim. 38. The above apprehension expressed by the respondents appears to be without any basis as this court in Luleswar Hazarika had already made it abundantly clear that those who did not respond to the earlier advertisement of the High Power Committee cannot claim consideration of their cases any further as there cannot be any endless exercise. It was also made clear that if there were any pending cases of dropped teachers with which the proceeding in Luleswar Hazarika was concerned, those cases should also be considered in terms of the notification dated 16.7.2010. Moreover, there are only three writ petitions now being considered by this court espousing the cause of 28 dropped teachers. 39. In Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the hon’ble Supreme Court while declaring claim for regularisation of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoc employees as unconstitutional, had however made an exception in case of irregular appointments, which was clarified in paragraph 53 of the judgment. The State was directed to take steps to regularize the services of irregularly appointed persons, who had worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals, as a “one-time measure”. The term “one-time measure” was explained by the hon’ble Supreme Court in the subsequent decision in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 to mean that it should consider all daily-wage, ad hoc or casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 (date of judgment in Uma Devi) without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Uma Devi but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to regularisation, the employer concerned should consider their cases also as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The onetime exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered are so considered. The fact that the onetime exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few will not disentitle such employees the right to be considered for regularisation as a one-time measure. Thus, in the context of the present case, the term “one time measure” has to be understood to be the exercise covering the cases of all similarly situated dropped teachers. If any such dropped teacher, who is similarly placed like the 130 dropped teachers, has been left out of consideration through invertance, oversight or for any bona fide reason, his case would also require similar consideration as part of the one time measure. 40. Claims of the petitioners are not fresh ones. They have been knocking the doors of this court since a long time. Their cases were scrutinized by the departmental authorities and put up before the High Power Committee. As already noticed above, only ground of rejection of their cases is not having two years of service on the date of provincialisation of the respective schools. While the benefit of relaxation under Rule, 7 has been extended to 130 similarly situated dropped teachers, the same has not been extended to the petitioners without any reasonable basis or justification. While exercising the power under Rule, 7 of the Rules, the State is required to act in a fair and judicious manner. There should not be any arbitrariness or discrimination in the exercise of such power which would be violative of article 14 of the Constitution. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the court is of the view that petitioners were subjected to an unfair and discriminatory treatment, which situation is now required to be remedied. 41. In that view of the matter, the cases of the petitioners for provincialisation are required to be reconsidered by invoking the power under Rule, 7 of the Rules, by the State Government at par with the 130 dropped teachers in whose cases the provision of Rule, 5(3) was relaxed. 41. In that view of the matter, the cases of the petitioners for provincialisation are required to be reconsidered by invoking the power under Rule, 7 of the Rules, by the State Government at par with the 130 dropped teachers in whose cases the provision of Rule, 5(3) was relaxed. The above exercise shall be carried out within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 42. Record produced by Mr. M.R. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel is returned back. 43. Writ petitions are allowed. 44. No cost.