Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 64 (MAN)

Th. Tongneilal Vaiphei v. State of Manipur

2021-10-28

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2021
JUDGMENT W.P.(C) No.53 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the notification dated 11.12.2020 issued by the Director of Education (S), Manipur. 2. W.P.(C) No.518 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioners to quash the notifications dated 19.7.2021 issued by the Director of Education (S), Manipur and to direct the respondents to re-engage the services of the petitioners in their respective posts. 3. Since the issue involved is one and the same, both the writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order. 4. The case of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.58 of 2021 is that the Government of Manipur, School Education Department, issued a notification dated 12.4.2006 to engage about 500 teachers consisting of the Science Graduate Teachers, Arts Graduate Teachers, Hindi Graduate Teachers, Primary Teachers and Hindi Matriculate Teachers on contract basis for a period of 85 days in view of the acute shortage of teachers in different schools in the Hill Districts. As such, on the recommendation of the Screening Committee constituted by the Government and in pursuance of the Government Order dated 18.4.2006, the petitioners were engaged on contract basis in different categories of posts on 12.5.2006, 16.5.2006 and 18.5.2006 respectively by issuing different orders for Science Graduate Teacher and Arts Graduate Teacher respectively. At the time of their initial appointment, the petitioners were fulfilled the eligible criteria as per the relevant Recruitment Rules. 5. Further case of the petitioners is that since the date of appointment, the services of the petitioners have been utilized by the competent authorities from time to time without any break till date. In the mean time, there was a Memorandum of Undertaking signed between the representatives of All Tribal Student Union and the Government of Manipur on 20.9.2006 in the presence of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Minister for Education, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the services of the teachers appointed on contract basis will be utilized until the posts are filled up on regular basis through normal recruitment or special drive as the case may. Thereafter, a proposal for re-engagement of 772 teachers were proposed to be extended at the various Hill Districts and accordingly, the services of the petitioner were extended and utilized by the competent authorities. 6. Thereafter, a proposal for re-engagement of 772 teachers were proposed to be extended at the various Hill Districts and accordingly, the services of the petitioner were extended and utilized by the competent authorities. 6. According to the petitioners, during a joint meeting held on 13.8.2019 with the Hon’ble Chief Minister, it was decided to regularize the contract teachers of 2006 batch engaged by the Department of Education(S) and directed to initiate and complete the process of regularization within two months, but till date, the same has not yet been implemented. Thereafter, on 19.8.2019, a notification was issued thereby giving information to all 772 contract teachers (Hill Districts) that e-verification will be conducted for those who are interested in teaching profession and the contract teachers were called upon to furnish necessary documents on or before the schedule date. Pursuant to the notification, 546 contract teachers appeared for verification in person along with the original copies of certificates. On 29.6.2020, the Director of School Education discussed the financial involvement in the regularization of the services of the contract teachers (Hill Districts), 2006. While the matter is pending consideration, fresh appointment has been advertised by the Director of School Education vide impugned notification, thereby advertising 923 post of graduate teachers (614-Arts graduate teachers and 309 Science graduate teachers) on contract basis and the eligible candidates have been invited to submit their applications through Employment Exchange on or before 11.1.2021. According to the petitioners before considering the regularization of the petitioners, the competent authority issued the impugned notification dated 11.12.2020, which is arbitrary and is liable to the quashed. 7. Similarly, the case of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.518 of 2021 is that they were appointed as teachers on contract basis under various orders starting with the one dated 19.5.2006 and their services were extended from time to time and were last extended in December, 2008. On 15.12.2011, a letter was tendered by the Director of School Education to the Principal Secretary, Education for re-engagement of 772 contract teachers, including the petitioners for a period of one academic year and due verification in regard to 772 teachers, including the petitioners was also done. After a lapse of eight years, on 14.11.2019 a notification was issued, whereby necessary orders/documents were called for submission for re-verification of 772 contract teachers. Pursuant to the notification, re-verification of 546 contract teachers, including the petitioners, were done. After a lapse of eight years, on 14.11.2019 a notification was issued, whereby necessary orders/documents were called for submission for re-verification of 772 contract teachers. Pursuant to the notification, re-verification of 546 contract teachers, including the petitioners, were done. On 12.8.2020, a joint Memorandum was submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Minister praying for reengagement/ regularization of the teachers appointed on contract basis in the Hill Districts in 2006. On 28.8.2020, a letter was also tendered by the Deputy Secretary (Education-S) to the Director of School Education requesting proposal for reengagement of the aforesaid contract teachers. However, no action in respect of 546 contract teachers was taken till date despite multiple communications having been tendered and exchanged between the concerned authorities. In the mean time, two notifications dated 19.7.20201 each were floated by the Director of School Education in leading newspapers that written tests for recruitment of 923 contract graduate teachers at Government Schools and 120 Pre-Primary Teachers at Government Schools on contract basis were notified. Challenging the said notifications, the petitioners have filed W.P.(C) No.518 of 2021. 8. Respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C) No.53 of 2021 filed affidavit-in-opposition, which was adopted in W.P.(C) No.518 of 2021, stating that the petitioners were initially appointed/engaged as Science Graduate Teachers and Arts Graduate Teachers on contract basis for a period of 85 days vide orders dated 12.5.2006, 16.5.2006 and 18.5.2006 respectively and their contract services were extended from time to time till 2008 and thereafter, the contract services of the petitioners have not been extended. Thus, the petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petitions. It is stated that since the contract services of the petitioners have not been extended from the year 2008, the plea of the petitioners that their services have been utilized by the competent authorities from time to time without any break till date is absolutely incorrect. 9. It is stated that during the contractual services of the petitioners, a notification was issued inviting all eligible candidates for appointment of Graduate Teacher (Mathematics, Biology, General Science, Arts) on regular basis and accordingly, a duly constituted DPC was held from 20.10.2006 to 21.10.2006 and the result of the said DPC was declared on 19.12.2006, thereby recommending altogether 663 candidates for appointment to the post of Graduate Teacher in the Department of Education-S and thereafter, all the recommended candidates have been appointed as Graduate Teacher on 19.4.2007. Since the contract services rendered by the petitioners were already replaced by the regularly appointed graduate teachers, the petitioners have no locus to file the present writ petitions and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 10. Heard the learned senior counsels for the petitioners and the learned Government counsel appearing for the respondents. 11. Assailing the impugned notifications, the learned senior counsels for the petitioners submitted that due to non-consideration of the Screening Committee meeting by the competent authority, the petitioners are in dilemma and that the petitioners apprehend that once the impugned notifications have been effected by appointing 923 graduate teachers both Arts and Science, the petitioners would put to irreparable loss and damage. 12. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners have been in service and have been discharging their duties at their respective schools since their first appointment without any break to the full satisfaction of their superiors till date even after the expiry of the extended period. He would submit that the continuity of the services of the petitioners has been duly verified by the authorities first in 2011 and then in 2019, thereby confirming that they have been in service continuously. However, without considering the case of the petitioners, the Director of School Education issued the impugned notifications for conducting written tests for recruitment to various teaching posts in violation of their own standing instructions. Apart from this, the learned counsel, submitted that there was an agreement signed between the All Tribal Students Union and the Government of Manipur to the effect that the cases of the petitioners and others will be regularized. 13. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, despite multiple exercises having been undertaken to verify and re-verify the services and other particulars of the petitioners in pursuit of their re-engagement and despite they clearing all of them, no further action was taken by the Government till date, but in attempting to recruitment teachers as well. Thus, the acts of the respondents in not re-engaging and/or regularizing the services of the petitioners are illegal, arbitrary and unlawful. Therefore, the impugned notifications are liable to be set aside. 14. Per contra, the learned Government counsel contended that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petitions since their contract engagements were already discontinued and not extended from the year 2008. Therefore, the impugned notifications are liable to be set aside. 14. Per contra, the learned Government counsel contended that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petitions since their contract engagements were already discontinued and not extended from the year 2008. That apart, during their contractual services of the petitioners, a notification was issued inviting all eligible candidates for appointment of Graduate Teachers in the subjects Mathematics, Biology, General Science and Arts on regular basis and a duly constituted DPC was held and result was also declared on 19.12.2006, thereby recommending 663 candidates for appointment to the post of Graduate Teachers in the Department of School Education and all the recommended candidates have been appointed as Graduate Teachers on 19.4.2007 and since the contract services rendered by the petitioners were already replaced by the regularly appointed Graduate Teachers, the petitioners have no right to question the impugned notifications. 15. This Court considered the submissions raised by learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record. 16. The petitioners contend that they were initially appointed/engaged as Science Graduate Teachers and Arts Graduate Teachers on contract basis for a period of 85 days vide orders dated 12.5.2006, 16.5.2006, 18.5.2006 and 19.5.2006 respectively and their services were extended from time to time. Since the date of their initial appointment, the services of the petitioners have been utilized by the competent authorities from time to time without any break till date. The petitioners say that as per the joint meeting of the All Tribal Student Union held with the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 13.8.2019, it has been decided to regularize the contract teachers of 2006 batch engaged by the School Education Department and in this regard, it has also been directed to initiate and complete the process of regularization of the contract teachers along with the financial involvement within two months. 17. Admittedly, nothing has been produced by the petitioners to show that the authorities were proposed to reengage the teachers working at various Hill Districts such as Churachandpur, Ukhrul, Tamenglong, Senapati, Kangpokpi, Chenadel etc. and also nothing on record to show that the service of the petitioners have been extended and utilized by the competent authorities till date. 18. On the other hand, the respondent authorities contended that the contract services of the petitioners have not been extended and their engagements were already discontinued. and also nothing on record to show that the service of the petitioners have been extended and utilized by the competent authorities till date. 18. On the other hand, the respondent authorities contended that the contract services of the petitioners have not been extended and their engagements were already discontinued. Moreover, during their contractual period itself, a notification was issued inviting the eligible candidates for appointment as Graduate Teachers and by following due to process of law, 663 candidates were given appointment to the post of Graduate Teachers in the School Education Department on 19.12.2006 and all the recommended candidates have also been appointed vide order dated 19.4.2007. Thus, according to the respondent authorities, the contract services rendered by the petitioners were already replaced by the regularly appointed graduate teachers and therefore, there is no question of replacing them would arise. This Court finds some force in the said submission of the respondents as is evident from the notification issued by the respondent authorities during the contractual period of the petitioners stated supra. 19. The petitioners contend that the regularization of the petitioners was pending consideration and any fresh appointment advertised through the impugned notification is unsustainable. As stated supra, since the contract services of the petitioners were already replaced by the regularly appointed graduate teachers, the question of their regularization pending with the Screening Committee or before the Government has no merit. In fact, the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Government and the All Tribal Student Union, it has been stated as under: “3. The service of the teachers appointed on contract basis will be utilized until the posts are filled up on regular basis through normal recruitment of special drive as the case may be.” 20. No contrary evidence has been produced by the petitioners to show that during their contractual services, no notification was issued and the duly constituted DPC declared the result of 663 candidates for appointment to the post of graduate teachers. Thus, there is no question of replacement of a set of contract teachers by another set of contract teachers as the contract services of the petitioners have not been extended since the year 2008. That apart, as stated supra, the contract services of the petitioners had already been replaced by the regularly appointed teachers. Thus, there is no question of replacement of a set of contract teachers by another set of contract teachers as the contract services of the petitioners have not been extended since the year 2008. That apart, as stated supra, the contract services of the petitioners had already been replaced by the regularly appointed teachers. In fact, the specific averment of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.518 of 2021 is that though their services were extended from time to time, the last extension was till December, 2008. Thus, it is clear that the services of the petitioners were not extended beyond December, 2008 and therefore, the petitioners have no vested right to question the notifications impugned in the writ petitions. 21. For the foregoing discussions, this Court finds that there is no merit in the case of the petitioners and that the petitioners have no vested right to question the impugned notifications. Therefore, the writ petitions of the petitioners are liable to be dismissed. 22. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous application, if any, is closed.