CHANDER MOHAN NEGI & ORS. versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 638 · Decided: 17-04-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
638
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
CHANDER MOHAN NEGI & ORS.
v.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2813 of 2017)
APRIL 17, 2020
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
The Himachal Pradesh Compulsory Primary Education Act,
1997 – Appointment of teachers under various schemes framed by
government – Regularization of – Schemes in question were notified
in the year 2001 & 2003 under which appointments were made
with regard to Primary Assistant Teachers and teachers in other
categories – Challenged in 2012 by individuals who qualified only
in the year 2011 – Writ petition allowed by Single Judge – Order set
aside by Division Bench – Held: It is true that in the initial schemes
notified by the Government there was a condition that such
appointees should not seek regularisation/absorption but at the same
time for no fault of them, they cannot be denied regularisation/
absorption – It is in view of the requirement of the State, their services
were extended from time to time – Now all the appointees have
completed more than 15 years of service – They are working for
meagre salaries – Except the vague submission that such schemes
were framed only to make back door entries, there is no material
placed on record to buttress such submission – Further, there was
unexplained and inordinate delay on the part of the appellants in
approaching the High Court in 2012 without even impleading the
appointees as party respondents – Writ petitioners did not file
rejoinder disputing the averments of the State as stated in the reply
affidavit that in view of the hard topography/tribal areas in the
State, large number of vacancies were there even single teacher
schools and such steps were taken to achieve the object of 1997
Act – Having regard to nature of such appointments, appointments
made as per policies cannot be termed as illegal – No case made
out to interfere with the impugned judgment of High Court – The
Himachal Pradesh Prathmik Sahayak Adhyapak/Primary Assistant
Teacher (PAT) Scheme – The Himachal Pradesh Para Teachers
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 638
638
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
639
(Lecturer School Cadre), Para Teachers (TGT’s) and Para Teachers
(C&V) Policy, 2003 – Himachal Pradesh Gram Vidya Upasak Yojna,
2001 – Service Law.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 As is evident from the scheme itself, the object
of the scheme appears to be to compulsorily enrol children in
schools for elementary and primary education in the remote areas
to achieve the goals as set by the Government while enacting
The Himachal Pradesh Compulsory Primary Education Act, 1997
with a view to achieve the target of 100% enrolment to children.
[Para 11][647-C-D]
1.2 It is true that in the initial schemes notified by the
Government there was a condition that such appointees should
not seek regularisation/absorption but at the same time for no
fault of them, they cannot be denied regularisation/absorption. It
is in view of the requirement of the State, their services were
extended from time to time and now all the appointees have
completed more than 15 years of service. For majority of the
appointed teachers under the various schemes benefit was already
extended and some left over candidates were denied on account
of interim orders passed by this Court. With regard to Primary
Assistant Teachers, it is stated that all the candidates have
completed Special Teacher Training Qualifying Condensed
Course and also had obtained special JBT certificate after 5 years’
continuous service in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Education
Code 1985. There was unexplained and inordinate delay on the
part of the appellants in approaching the High Court and further
having regard to explanation offered by the State about the need
of framing such policies to meet the immediate requirement to
fill up single teacher schools which were vacant for a very long
time, having regard to topographical conditions, which is not even
controverted by way of any rejoinder before the High Court. In
such view of the matter, taking the totality of peculiar
circumstances of these cases, we are of the that the view
expressed by this Court in the judgments relied on cannot be
applied to the facts of the case on hand. All the appointed
candidates are working for the meagre salaries pursuant to
schemes notified by the Government. Except the vague
CHANDER MOHAN NEGI & ORS. v. STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
640
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
submi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.