Supreme Court Judgement
(Dated 30 March 2012 regarding Regular Appointments & Extention of time period of Guest Teachers.)
SLP(C)...CC 5956-5957/12,etc.
ITEM NOs.MM-2-F COURT NO.2 SECTION IVB and MM-2-G SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petitions(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2012 CC 5956-5957/12
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution against the final judgment and order dated 30/03/2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.6090 of 2010 and against the final judgment and order dated 15/03/2012 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Misc.No.17483 of 2011)
NARESH KUMAR & ORS.ETC.ETC. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s)
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for permission to file SLP and with prayer for interim relief )
WITH SLP(C) NO. 10818 of 2012
WITH SLP(C) NO. 10818 of 2012
(With appln.(s)for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and permission to place addl.documents on record and with prayer for interim relief and office report)
Date: 30/03/2012
Date: 30/03/2012
These Petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR
For Petitioner(s) Mr. G.E.Vahanvati, A.G.I. in SLP(C)10818/12
Mr. H.S. Hooda, A.G.Haryana.
Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Abhijat P.Medh, AOR.
Sri Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Adv. in SLP(C)..../12
Ms. Indu Malhotra, Sr. Adv. CC 5956-5957/12
Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Adv.
Sri G.Balaji, Adv.
SLP(C)...CC 5956-5957/12,etc.
Ms. Chinmaya Chandra, Adv., Sri Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv., for M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Advs.
For Respondent(s) Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. John Mathew,AOR.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER:
1. Permission to file SLPs granted.
2. Three Special Leave Petitions have been filed,two by Mr. Naresh Kumar & Ors., in SLP(C)......CC Nos.5956-5957 of 2012,against the final judgment and order dated 30th March, 2011, passed in CWP No.6090 of 2010 and the final judgment and order dated 15th March, 2012, in Civil Misc.No.17483 of 2011, passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, and SLP(C)No.10818 of 2012, filed by the State of Haryana against the final judgment and order dated 15th March, 2012, passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.M. No.17483/11 in Civil Writ Petition No.6090 of 2010.
3. The subject-matter of all the three Special Leave Petitions is with regard to the appointment of 'Guest Teachers' and their continuance, without recruitment of teachers in 3
the various educational institutions, by the regular process of recruitment. The issue involved appears to have been considered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, in several matters,
since quite some time.In fact, we have been able to glean from the facts as disclosed that this issue came up for consideration before the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No.6090 of 2010, which has been questioned in SLP(C)......CC 5956-5957 of 2012. The said writ petition was disposed of by the judgment and order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 30th March, 2011, wherein it was mentioned that the specific challenge which had been made in the writ petition was with regard to the decision of the respondents to extend the services of 'Guest Teachers' appointed under contract basis in various Government schools of the State of Haryana. In the said Writ Petition, it was also indicated that the extension was proposed for a further period of one year with effect from 1st April,2011.
the various educational institutions, by the regular process of recruitment. The issue involved appears to have been considered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, in several matters,
since quite some time.In fact, we have been able to glean from the facts as disclosed that this issue came up for consideration before the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No.6090 of 2010, which has been questioned in SLP(C)......CC 5956-5957 of 2012. The said writ petition was disposed of by the judgment and order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 30th March, 2011, wherein it was mentioned that the specific challenge which had been made in the writ petition was with regard to the decision of the respondents to extend the services of 'Guest Teachers' appointed under contract basis in various Government schools of the State of Haryana. In the said Writ Petition, it was also indicated that the extension was proposed for a further period of one year with effect from 1st April,2011.
Incidentally, the respondent No.6 in the said writ petition is duly represented before us and 4
he is a candidate for consideration for appointment in the regular course.The said Writ Petition was disposed of in terms of a schedule, which had been prepared by the respondent-authorities, and the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court made it very clear that while it would be open to the State to extend the tenure of the'GuestTeachers' at all levels, such extension should not be beyond 31st March,2012. It was also indicated that on the expiry of the said date, i.e.31st March, 2012, services of all the 'Guest Teachers' should be understood to have lapsed in terms of the said judgment and it would not be open
for the State to continue such 'Guest Teachers' in service. It is,in fact, the said directions which had led to the filing of the Special Leave Petitions. The Division Bench had also indicated that there would be no further appointment of 'Guest Teachers' during the next Academic year, starting from 1st April, 2011, and the short-fall,if any, in the availability of teachers would have to be made up by the State by undertaking a fresh process/ exercise of posting and re-posting of teachers according to the needs of each school. Various other directions were also given regarding appointment of teachers on regular basis.
4. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned senior advocate, appearing for the petitioners in the said Special Leave Petitions, has submitted that the direction referred to hereinabove given by the Division Bench of the High Court would create a situation in which after 1st April, 2012, there would be no teachers available in place of the 'Guest Teachers' and unless the
directions was extended till at least regular appointments were made, the students in the
various institutions would suffer. Of course, Mr. Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel, has
also voiced his apprehension that this may lead to continuance of the process of continuing with the 'Guest Teachers'.
he is a candidate for consideration for appointment in the regular course.The said Writ Petition was disposed of in terms of a schedule, which had been prepared by the respondent-authorities, and the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court made it very clear that while it would be open to the State to extend the tenure of the'GuestTeachers' at all levels, such extension should not be beyond 31st March,2012. It was also indicated that on the expiry of the said date, i.e.31st March, 2012, services of all the 'Guest Teachers' should be understood to have lapsed in terms of the said judgment and it would not be open
for the State to continue such 'Guest Teachers' in service. It is,in fact, the said directions which had led to the filing of the Special Leave Petitions. The Division Bench had also indicated that there would be no further appointment of 'Guest Teachers' during the next Academic year, starting from 1st April, 2011, and the short-fall,if any, in the availability of teachers would have to be made up by the State by undertaking a fresh process/ exercise of posting and re-posting of teachers according to the needs of each school. Various other directions were also given regarding appointment of teachers on regular basis.
4. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned senior advocate, appearing for the petitioners in the said Special Leave Petitions, has submitted that the direction referred to hereinabove given by the Division Bench of the High Court would create a situation in which after 1st April, 2012, there would be no teachers available in place of the 'Guest Teachers' and unless the
directions was extended till at least regular appointments were made, the students in the
various institutions would suffer. Of course, Mr. Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel, has
also voiced his apprehension that this may lead to continuance of the process of continuing with the 'Guest Teachers'.
5. The other Special Leave Petition has been filed by the State of Haryana, in regard to the
order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 15th March, 2012,in C.M. No.17483/11 in Civil Writ Petition No.6090 of 2010. By the said order, the Division Bench of the High Court rejected the prayer of the State of Haryana for extension of time to implement the directions contained in the order dated 30th March, 2011. The learned Attorney General for India, appearing for the State of Haryana, however, brought to our notice an order subsequently passed by the same Division Bench on 20th March, 2012, whereby a scheme for filling up the vacant posts in order to comply with the directions contained in the order of 30th March, 2011, had been placed before the Court and the same had been accepted, in fact, a prayer had been made for about ten months' time to give effect to the said scheme. The learned Attorney General for India pointed out that in the said order, the Court had observed that in view of the scheme it was no longer necessary for the Court to monitor
the actions of the State any further. On the contrary, the Court deemed it appropriate to
close the writ petition, which was in the nature of a public interest litigation, by directing the State of Haryana to initiate and comply with and take necessary action in terms of the averments made in the affidavit dated 19th March, 2012, affirmed by the Financial Commissioner and Member Secretary to the Government of Haryana, School Education Department, and to adhere to the time schedule mentioned in the said affidavit.
6. The learned Attorney General for India, submitted that there being two contrary directions, one passed on 15th March, 2012, and the other on 20th March, 2012, accepting the scheme, and, in fact, extending the time for giving effect to the scheme, the State of Haryana had filed the Special Leave Petition to clarify the differences in the two orders.
7. Having heard the learned Attorney General for India, Mr. Subramanium and Mr. Vishwanathan, learned senior advocates, for the parties and also keeping in mind the submissions made by Mr. Vishwanathan, that the intention of the Division Bench of the High Court was that no further appointments of 'Guest Teachers' should be made after 1st April, 2012, and that the vacancies should be filled up by posting and reposting teachers in the different institutions, we feel that the two things should really be kept separate,notwithstanding the apprehension voiced by Mr. Vishwanathan, that this could lead
to continuance of appointment of 'Guest Teachers'.
order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 15th March, 2012,in C.M. No.17483/11 in Civil Writ Petition No.6090 of 2010. By the said order, the Division Bench of the High Court rejected the prayer of the State of Haryana for extension of time to implement the directions contained in the order dated 30th March, 2011. The learned Attorney General for India, appearing for the State of Haryana, however, brought to our notice an order subsequently passed by the same Division Bench on 20th March, 2012, whereby a scheme for filling up the vacant posts in order to comply with the directions contained in the order of 30th March, 2011, had been placed before the Court and the same had been accepted, in fact, a prayer had been made for about ten months' time to give effect to the said scheme. The learned Attorney General for India pointed out that in the said order, the Court had observed that in view of the scheme it was no longer necessary for the Court to monitor
the actions of the State any further. On the contrary, the Court deemed it appropriate to
close the writ petition, which was in the nature of a public interest litigation, by directing the State of Haryana to initiate and comply with and take necessary action in terms of the averments made in the affidavit dated 19th March, 2012, affirmed by the Financial Commissioner and Member Secretary to the Government of Haryana, School Education Department, and to adhere to the time schedule mentioned in the said affidavit.
6. The learned Attorney General for India, submitted that there being two contrary directions, one passed on 15th March, 2012, and the other on 20th March, 2012, accepting the scheme, and, in fact, extending the time for giving effect to the scheme, the State of Haryana had filed the Special Leave Petition to clarify the differences in the two orders.
7. Having heard the learned Attorney General for India, Mr. Subramanium and Mr. Vishwanathan, learned senior advocates, for the parties and also keeping in mind the submissions made by Mr. Vishwanathan, that the intention of the Division Bench of the High Court was that no further appointments of 'Guest Teachers' should be made after 1st April, 2012, and that the vacancies should be filled up by posting and reposting teachers in the different institutions, we feel that the two things should really be kept separate,notwithstanding the apprehension voiced by Mr. Vishwanathan, that this could lead
to continuance of appointment of 'Guest Teachers'.
8. We make it very clear that as directed by the Division Bench of the High Court, no fresh
appointments of 'Guest Teachers' will be made from 1st April, 2012. However, since students also cannot be made to suffer on account of the delay in the appointment of regular teachers, we direct that the exercise indicated in the scheme,must be completed within the time specified in the scheme and no further extension or deviation therefrom will be ermitted.
9. Till then, the 'Guest Teachers' may be allowed to continue to function, as they have been doing so far.
appointments of 'Guest Teachers' will be made from 1st April, 2012. However, since students also cannot be made to suffer on account of the delay in the appointment of regular teachers, we direct that the exercise indicated in the scheme,must be completed within the time specified in the scheme and no further extension or deviation therefrom will be ermitted.
9. Till then, the 'Guest Teachers' may be allowed to continue to function, as they have been doing so far.
10. We once again reiterate that the recruitment of teachers on the regular basis shall not be supplemented or replaced by this procedure of appointing 'Guest Teachers' for the sake of convenience.
11. The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
12. There will be no orders as to costs.
11. The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
12. There will be no orders as to costs.
(Sheetal Dhingra) (Juginder Kaur)
COURT MASTER Assistant Registra
COURT MASTER Assistant Registra