Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 446 (MP)

Ram Mohan Parashar v. State of M. P.

2015-04-20

SHEEL NAGU

body2015
ORDER 1. This order will govern the disposal of Writ Petition No.6765/2014. 2. Despite grant of various opportunities to the State, no reply has been filed till date and thus further time sought by the learned counsel for State is declined in view of the nature of order passed infra. 3. Perusal of the submissions made in the petition indicates that challenge is to the order Annexure P-1 dated 7.10.2014, whereby some instructions have been issued by School Education Department, Bhopal directing all the Schools to terminate the services of those retired teachers, who had been re-employed on the principle of pay minus pension under the order dated 21.5.2010 of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, School Education Department, which finds mention in the order of appointment (Annexure P-3). 4. Perusal of Annexure P-3 indicates that the State to deal with the scarcity of teachers in the rural schools framed policy for re-employing the retired teachers for one academic session. This policy was initiated from academic session 2009-10 under certain conditions including that in case services of such re-employed teachers are to be terminated, then one month’s notice or one month’s salary in lieu of notice shall be afforded. 5. The petitioners were appointed by the appointment orders (Annexure P-3) for academic session 2014-15 under certain terms and conditions including the termination clause of giving one month’s notice or one month’s salary in lieu of notice period. 6. The order Annexure P-1 dated 7.10.2014 directs termination of services. 7. This impelled the petitioners to approach this Court as their services were brought to a sudden end inter alia without complying with the above said condition contained in one of the clauses to which the appointment order was subject. 8. It is undisputed that the examinations of the academic session 2014-15 qua Middle Schools are over. 9. However, learned counsel for petitioners contends that the academic session 2014-15 for all practical reasons shall end on 30.4.2015. 10. Since the appointments of the petitioners were only for academic session 2014-15 which has either come to an end or shall come to an end at best on 30.4.2014, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this petition pending. 11. It is pertinent to point out that in view of the interim orders passed by this Court on different dates, the petitioners have continued in service. 12. 11. It is pertinent to point out that in view of the interim orders passed by this Court on different dates, the petitioners have continued in service. 12. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in the following terms :- 1. The impugned order dated 7.10.2014 so far as it relates to the petitioners is quashed for having been passed in violation of the condition No.2 of the appointment order, 2. The appointments in question, which were only for the academic session 2014-15, have either come to an end or shall come to an end on 30.4.2014; 3. No right accrues to the petitioners to continue in service beyond the end of academic session 2014-15 or 30.4.2014, as the case may be. 13. A copy of this order be kept in the record of Writ Petition No.6765/2014 (S).