1 C^^}l^/^5 IN THE MADHYA FRADESH STATE ADMEWTRATTVE TMBUNAL AT JABALPUR ORIGINALAPPLICATIONNOCLJ-^-^OF 2000 Kirisfana Kumar Patel, S/oShri TiharuRamPatel, Aged about 39 years, Enaployedoatii6jpostofPeon, 0/0 Block Development Education OfBeer. DhaFsiwan.District- RAffBltflULP.l t '* Durgesfa Thalcur, S/o Shri Paras Ram Thakur, Aged about 36 years, Employed oathe post ofPeon, O/o Block Devetopment Education OfBcer. Dharsiwan, Distriet-RAiyCRfM.p.) i3. •M. m IK; BB: V. Bl!;. sssc II Slai Kumbhkaran Sahu, S/oShri PalturamSahu, Aged about 33 years, Employed on diepost ofPeoa, O/o Block Developfflent Education Officer. Dharsiwan, District-RAiPijRflWLP.) Bhupendra Kumar Verma, iSA)Shri Raanlal Verma, Aged about 40 years, Employedonfhe post ofPeon, O/o BIock Devetopment Education Officer. DhansiwaB. District- RAffiiRau.p.l Shankarlal Kasliyap, S/o late Shri Kamta Prasad, Agedabout 35 years, Employed on the post ofPeon, O/o Block Development Education Ofi&cer. Dharsiwan, Distriet-RAtPiJBTMLp.) Miraa Salam Begh. S/o Shri Mirza Jhadu Be^h. Aged about 37 years, Employed onthe ppst ofPeon, JQ/0 BIock Deyelopment Education Officer. DeObfaog, District-RAIPCBflULP.1 iAaas Kumar Sahu, . S/oSlm DhamramSahu. Aged about 34 years, Employed otfthe post ofPeoa, ;0/o Btock DevelopmentEducafioa Officer. Ilharsiwan, District- RAlPllRfM.p.l' ^^^ fsw ^&':^^ •'.^i^^ 'T'' • ••!'.''• :: 2 Bhupat Ram Yadav, S/o Shri Sohanlal Yadav, Aged about 34 years, Employed on fhe post ofPeon, € Block DeveloprnfiDt Education OfBcer. jj Dharsiwan, Distriet- BAiPURflvLP.) ' Babulal Sahn, S/o SIm Vishram Sahu, ^ Agedabottt 37 years, 1 Einployed on <he post ofPeoh, 0/o;Block Developm^ntESucation OfBcer. Tiltfa, District- RAJPCRnW.P.) i-l^ JaidhaRam Yadav, IS S^ Shri Dhrutlal Yadav, Aged about 34 years, aEmployed on the post ofPeon, |0/o Block Development Education Officer. iAarang, Districf-RAIPGBOU.P.) l! Mohaalal Dewangaii, ; S/o Sfari Sadanlal DewaDgan, Agedahout 39 years, i Eniployed on the post ofPecm, i[ GOTt.Multipurpose HigherSecondary School, , Raipur.District- BAIFBIUM.P.) -VERSUS- te ofMadhya Pradesh, iDqpartinentofSehool Education, i TUron^i it's Principal Secretary, Jj Maitral^a, VaUabh Bhawan, ;i BHOPAfcfltU.). lii TlieDh^ctor i^TuMie Instructions, . II; QovennnetitofMadhya Pradesh, .APPLICANTS sa > Ki; ^^ BI.:1'S w BHQPAL(MA) ];tl: a..s Bl' iTheDistrict Educadan Qfficer, iRAlEUR, . :' ' ' |f^]3istrict:BAn>GR(M.M ..RESPQNDENTS itPLBEAlION UNDER SECTIONI90F TmEADMINISTRATIVE TRffiUNALS ACT. 1985 CT» HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon anindra Mohan Shrivastava. j, Writ iS} No.1909/2005 PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS: Krishna Kumar Patel and others Versus State of M. P. and others FQR PRONOUNCMENT QF ORDER Sd/- - - Manindra Mohan Shrivastava .ludge -04200 ^^o <? .fa£'s:.,, r^*i. ~\ 3 '--f"'-^- l^ ^,. ^7 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Sinale Behch: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. Writ Petftion fSl No.1909/2005 PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS: Krishna Kumar Patel and others Versus State of M. P. and others Shri Mazid Ali, counsel forthe petitioners. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on J^April, 2010) Petitioners have assailed legality and validity of order dated 21-02-2CUO (Annexure A-8) by which services of the petitioners have been terminated on the IKund that they were appointed as contingency peon after 31-12-1988 without permission/sanction of the Finance Department and without selection by a selection committee, in furtherance of government instruction dated 14-02-2000 and Directorate's instruction dated 18-02-2000. (2) Case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 possesses qualificatjon of M. A. (Hindi), petitioner No.2-B.A., petitioner No.3-12th, petitioners No.4 to 6- 12th and pstitioners No.7 to 11-8 . All of them have been registered with Employment Exchange. Vide order dated 24-05-1966/27-06-1966, the Govt. of Madhya Pradesh sanctioned 199 posts of confingency peons and vide order dated 21-09-1987, the Deputy Director, Education, Raipur had allotted 44 posts of contingency peons under the Block Education Office, Dharsnvan. It is the case of the petitioners that in order to fiil-up regular vacant post of Peon, applications were invited by affixing notice on the •^^. •;, '•^?''... L' -2-— notice board of the school. Petitioners were informed by the committee and thereafter they were appointed temporarily as contingency peons on collector rate for a period of 89 days to be paid on monthly basis. Their appointment ordere were issued on different dates in the year 1989, which have been annexed as Annexure A-1. Further case of the petitioner is Uiat under government cireular dated 10-05-1984, atl contingency paid employees who were initially recruited for a period of three years at the fixed salary as fixed by the Collector, were entitled to be granted benefit of regular pay scale on fulfilling minimum educationat qualification and requirement of experience. In furtherance of the same, orders were issued declaring pstitioners as temporary members of the contingency establishment and were granted regular pay scale of Rs.750-945/- from the respective dates of completion of three years service. All these orders are annexed as Annexure A-2. Further case ofthe petitioners is that they were brought under the regular establishment and their service books were prepared, pay fixation was done and regular benefit of D.A., HRA, CCA, -pepartmental Provident Fund was extended. With effect from 01-01-1996, pay scale of Rs.750-945/- was revised to Rs.2550-3200/-. This revised pay scale was aiso granted to the petitioners, which is clear from monthly pay bill for the month of January, 2000, filed as Annexure A-7. (3) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that as the government circular relating to termination of the daily wage emptoyees who were appointed on or after 31-12-1988 did not apply to the petitioners as they were not appointed on daily wages basis but initially appointed temporarily for a period of 89 days in the contingency establishment and were later on brought in the regular establishment as regular members of contingency establishment. It is also submitted that schools covered under the definition of "industry" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore, all non-teaching employees including the petitioners are "workmen". .3420f •y, ^o'<? -3 Therefore, their services could not be terminated without following prescribed procedure under the law. Even then, respondent No.3 vide order dated 21-02-2000 (Annexure A-8) directed termination of the services of the petitioner. It is, therefore, argued that before passing the impugned order of termination, neither any enquiry was held nor notice was served nor one month's salary in lieu thereof was paid. The petitionere were not afforded any opportunity to defend themselves. They were appointed against vacant sanctioned posts and granted all benefits of regular employment. It is also submitted that government's instruction dated 14-02-2000 is not applicable to the case ofthe petitioners. Even government circular dated 15-09- 1989 was also not applicable as all the appointments were made prior to the said date except in the case of two petitioners. It is also submitted that scrutiny in accordance with the government instruction dated 14-02-2000 has not been done. It is argued that the petitioners are continued for severat years in their services, as such, they could not be terminated. (4) Per contra, submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that all the petitionere were appointed after 31-12-1^8, when there was complete ban on appointments vlde State Governments letter dated 01-05-1985 (Annexure R-1). Subsequently, the powers were also witiidrawn vide letter dated 01-04-1987 (Annexure R-2). It is submitted that despite ban and suspension of power, the petitioners were appointed by various authorities after 31-12-1988 without permission from the State Govt. The petitioners were appointed by authorities having no competence to make such appointments. It is submitted that regular appointments are -govemed by statutory rules known as Madhya Pradesh, School Education Department, Contingency Paid Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1987 (Annexure R-3). In granting appointments to the petitioners, these rules were not followed. Alt the appointments are contraryto the statutory rules and without -0420F -p-•f ^o <? -^ :? following constitutional procedure. It is submitted that appointments were back door entry which were later on wrongly regularized and the said act was in complete violation of statutory rules governing recruitment and regular appointment. The case of the petitioners were examined by the screening committee constituted in accordance with the instructions issued by the State Govt. on 14-02-2000 and 26-02-2000 and it was found that appointments of the petitioners were not proper and were made by the incompetent authority and in complete viotation of prescribed procedure of recruitment to the post. It is further submitted that if the petitioners intend to enforce their right in the capacity as workmen, appropriate remedy was to approach the Industrial CourM-abour Court. (5) From the pleadings on record and documente filed by the parties, it is apparent that the petitioners' appointment itself was a back-door entry. There is nothing on record to show that at the time of making initial appointment of the rtitioners, regular process of selection as envisaged under the statutory recruitment rules was followed. The appointment of the petitioners was made by the incompetent authority during the period when there was a complete ban. Subsequent regularization would not confer any right upon the petitioners to continue in service where ttieir initial entry into the service iteelf was illegal and without following the constitutionat procedure. The screening committee constituted by the Government found that the appointment of the petitioners during ban period by the incompetent authority was in violation of prescribed rutes of regular appointment. (6) In view of the ju3gments of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Kamataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, Govemment of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. K. Brahmanandam and others, ^sB-tua, ' ^A \ i^' '* %- gii^-<»Bi^^r~ ^ '"'SBJ<ii3k 'fc^,,^ "tf,i-^,^l-"i ^~ (2008) 5 SCC 241 and Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and others, (2008) 10 SCC 1, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. (7) Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Interim order passed by the Tribunal on 16-03-2000 is hereby vacated. There shall be no orders as to eost. Sd/- ~~ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge : .->' >