0

Rajasthan HC directs State Government to look into the absence of State Counsel representation in legal proceedings

CASE TITLE – Rekha Kumari v. State Of Rajasthan.

CASE NUMBER – S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3015/2019

DATED ON – 15.03.2024

QUORUM – Hon’ble Justice Ganesh Ram Meena

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

Mr. Rahul Gupta, Adv. and Mr. Shubhendu Pilania, Adv., on behalf of Mr. Basant Singh Chhaba, AAG, representing all respondents, request three weeks to file a reply. On January 22, 2020, this Court instructed the petitioner’s attorney to provide a copy of the petition to Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG’s office and to file the case after indicating Mr. Saini’s name in the cause-list. Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG, represented the respondents on February 3, 2020, and requested two weeks to provide a response. On September 15, 2023, Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG, representing the respondents, requested an extension of time to submit their reply, and this request was granted. Once more, now, more than four years later, the respondent State’s attorneys ask for extra time to file a response. The issues concern the petitioners’ claim to be appointed to the Grade III (Special Education) Teacher post. The unemployed people who have come before this court as petitioners are doing so in order to pursue justice. Although they were served four years ago, the respondent-State, which is regarded as a welfare state, is pleading for more time to submit a response.

 

ISSUE

Whether the State can be given time to file a reply.

 

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan noticed that the respondent authority’s sluggish attitude demonstrates that they are not operating as a welfare state, and this type of behaviour might have disastrous effects on the entire legal system, which is why poor unemployed litigants are turning to the courts in the first place. The court has also evidently noticed that the respondent-State is not being adequately represented by the Officer or its solicitors for the past two months. It has been brought to the attention of the Rajasthani government, the chief secretary, and the principal secretary of the law and legal affairs department several times, but as of yet, no adequate plan has been established for the state’s representation. The absence of State counsel is the reason for the adjournment of several cases.  A few days ago, this Court also learned of a lawsuit that the State had brought, in which no one had represented the State on two or three occasions. In the aforementioned case, this Court believes that the Governor of Rajasthan, His Excellency, should be informed of the issue so that the State Government can investigate and the State’s interests can be protected throughout the legal process and any rulings rendered by the Court. The court ordered that a copy of this order must be sent by the Registrar (Judicial) to the Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan, His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan, and the Principal Secretary of the Law and Legal Affairs Department of the Government of Rajasthan. For the sake of fairness, the Hon’ble High Court gave the respondents  two weeks as a last chance to file a reply, subject to the respondent state paying each petitioner’s costs of Rs. 10,000 in the event that the reply is not submitted by the next listing date.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

Click here to view full Judgement

0

The NIOS’s 18-month D.El.Ed. Diploma programme in elementary education is not equivalent to a two-year regular diploma: Supreme Court

Case title: Jaiveer Singh and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Case no.: SLP (C) No. 23943 of 2022

Decided on: 28.11.2023

Quorum: Hon’ble Chief Justice B.R Gavai, Hon’ble Justice Prasanth Kumar Mishra.

 

Hon’ble Justices stated that “we find that the High Court erred in holding that 18 months Diploma conducted by NIOS through ODL mode is equivalent to the 2 years regular Diploma, particularly so, when there was no material placed on record to even remotely hold that such a qualification was recommended by the Expert Body NCTE. On the contrary, the communication dated 6th September 2019 of NCTE, the directives of MHRD so also the recognition order dated 22nd September 2017 clearly go on to show that the 18 months Diploma was provided as a one-time window to the in-service teachers to acquire the minimum qualifications between the 2017 Amendment Act and the outer limit of 1st April 2019. In our considered view, the High Court has totally erred in holding that the 2 years Diploma is equivalent to 18 months Diploma.”

 

BRIEF FACTS:

These appeals challenge the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in a bunch of writ petitions which were filed challenging the order issued by the Secretary, Department of Elementary Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. The High Court held that the 18 months Diploma in Elementary Education conducted through the Open and Distance Learning mode in elementary education by the National Institute of Open Schooling is a valid Diploma for applying against the regular posts of Assistant Teachers in the State of Uttarakhand. The High Court therefore directed the State to consider the candidatures of the petitioners therein for the said post on the basis of the applications made by them pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Department of Elementary Education, Government of Uttarakhand.

 

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

After considering the arguments made by the counsel, the Supreme Court stated, It is evident that the law is trite in that the Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions; however, if the rules are silent on a particular issue, it can fill in the blanks, supplement the rules, and issue instructions that are not at odds with the rules already framed. It is a well-established legal principle that an authority cannot issue orders/office memorandums/executive instructions that contradict statutory rules. However, instructions may only be issued to supplement, not replace, the statutory rules.

The Court also stated that there is no doubt that NCTE, as an expert body, has the authority to prescribe minimum qualifications, which it has done in the current case by issuing notifications. It also stated that the recognition order only allows in-service teachers to complete their courses before April 1, 2019. As a result, the supreme court granted the appeals and reversed the High Court’s decision.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement

0

Madras High Court directs Army Public School to regularize Teacher with effect from the completion of one year of probationary period.

TITLE:  Mrs. Revathi Vs. CBSE Siksha Kendra and Ors.

Decided On: July 18, 2023.

Writ Petition Nos.1422 and 5596 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos.1563 & 5684 of 2022 W.P.No.1422 of 2022.

CORAM:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Satish Kumar.

Introduction:

W.P.No.1422 of 2022 challenges the letter of the 4th respondent dated 12.11.2021 vide proceedings No.298/APS/Ch/AWES passed by the 4th respondent and seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents 4 and 5 to issue a confirmation order as enlisted in the Application submitted by the 5th respondent School in the Final Submission dated 21.05.2012 to the petitioner within a stipulated time; and W.P.No.5596 of 2022 challenges the relieving order issued by the 5th respondent in letter No.APSC/RO/2022/2 dated 28.02.2022 in respect of the petitioner and seeks a direction to the respondents 4 and 5 to issue a confirmation letter thereby regularizing his appointment as TGT (Mathematics) Teacher with effect from the completion of one year of probationary period i.e., from 03.04.2017 with all monetary benefits.

Facts:

The petitioner completed her B.Sc., (Chemistry) in 1990. She worked as a Science Teacher in Lord Krishna Matric School for Classes VI to VIII for the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology. Thereafter, she joined B.Ed., in Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai and completed the course in 1992-93. After completion of her B.Ed., degree, she worked as Science Teacher in Mydeen Matric School, for classes VI to X. In the meantime, on 23.03.2002 she obtained a Diploma in School Administration through S.E.T. Madurai. She worked as a Chemistry Teacher at ARR Matric Higher Secondary School from 2004 to 2006 for IX and X standards. She took one year break. Then, she joined Velammal Matric Higher Secondary School, Surapet, Chennai as Chemistry Teacher for classes VI to IX and worked as such from 2007-2010. She also worked as NCC Cadet Teacher in that school since she held ‘C’ Certificate in the course. In the meantime, on the information which she got through the Right to Information Act, she came to know that her appointment which was made on 03.05.2011 got confirmed on 31.03.2012 and her second appointment which was made on 08.11.2018 got confirmed on 31.03.2012 and she became a permanent teaching staff and she could not be termed as a contractual staff. Suppressing the earlier two confirmation of appointments dated 31.03.2012 and 08.11.2019, the respondents 4 & 5 issued termination orders repeatedly. It is highly illegal and unlawful. She should be treated as permanent teaching staff w.e.f. 31.03.2012 and placed under permanent category.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

Much reliance was placed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 & 5 on the circular issued by the Army Welfare Education Society on 28.03.2023 in B/45785/Affiliation/AWES to state that State Government has no role whatsoever in the above said matter and an interpretation has been given by the Army Welfare Education Society itself to the effect that since the ownership of land allotted for Armed Forces Children Schools including the school buildings etc. continues with the Government and are located in defence land and the funds from which the buildings are constructed are provisioned by the QMG’s Branch, IHQ, Ministry of Defence (Army), from the budgetary sp allotted by respective service HQ by GOI, and the schools are managed by Local Military Authorities as per GOI provisions, the state Government have no role whatsoever in the matter. This court is of the view that such interpretation by themselves have no legs to stand. The respondents 4 & 5 cannot contend that they are not amenable to any State law when the law is operating the field and it applies to a school established in Tamil Nadu whether it receives grant from the government or not, or any other institution imparting education or training, established and administered or maintained by any person or body of persons, and recognized by the competent authority under this Act which would come within the ambit of private school Affiliation Bye-Laws 2018 refer to by the respondents 4 & 5 would make it very clear that every school managed by a society formed either by Central or State Government, Public Sector Undertakings, Statutory Bodies or established by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act has to obtain a “No Objection Certificate” from the appropriate State Government under Rule 2.3.5. In such view of the matter, this court is of the view that as qualifications of the writ petitioners are not in dispute, their selection was also not through back door method, and they were appointed on merits and the petitioner in W.P.No.1422 of 2022 has put in service for more than 11 years and as long as her qualification is not in dispute, she should be made as permanent and the respondents 3 to 5 cannot take advantage of the letter of appointment given to her for a fixed term of three years.

Conclusion:

The writ petitions are allowed. The respondents 4 & 5 are directed to issue a confirmation order as enlisted in the Application submitted by the 5th respondent School in the Financial Submission dated 21.05.2012 to
the petitioner in W.P.No.1422 of 2022 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The relieving order issued by the 5th respondent to the petitioner in W.P.No.5596 of 2022 is set aside and the respondents 4 & 5 are directed to issue a confirmation letter regularizing his appointment as TGT (Mathematics) Teacher with effect from the completion of one year of probationary period, i.e., from 03.04.2017 with continuity of service and 50% of back wages and all other attending benefits.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

Delhi High Court held that teachers of unaided private schools are entitled to the same pay and emoluments as those of government schools.

Title: BHARAT MATA SARASWATI BAL MANDIR SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL vs VINITA SINGH AND ORS.

Date of Decision: 07th July, 2023

+ LPA 601/2022 & CM APPLs. 45446-45447/2022

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

Introduction

Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgement dated 14th December, 2021, whereby the writ petition filed by three teachers seeking payment of 7th Central Pay Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘7th CPC’) has been allowed and held that teachers of unaided private schools are entitled to the same pay and emoluments as those of government schools, in terms of the obligation enjoined upon the private recognized schools under the DSE Act, 1973. The schools cannot evade their statutory responsibility and are bound to pay the statutory dues.

Facts of the case

The pertinent information is that respondents 1 through 3 have been regularly employed by the appellant institution. Respondent No. 5/Directorate of Education (DOE) issued a notification on October 17, 2017, requesting that all private recognised schools adopt the recommendations of the 7th CPC. Respondents 1 to 3 sought this Court by filing a writ case after the appellant school refused to extend the benefit of the 7th CPC. By the impugned judgement on 14th December 2021, the learned Single Judge found that the respondents 1 through 3 herein were entitled to arrears of their benefits/salaries beginning on January 1, 2016, and also required the school to give them in accordance with the 7th CPC’s rules. Hence, the current appeal has come to be filed by the school.

Analysis of the court

The Delhi High court held that the writ petition filed by the three teachers was maintainable as it involves a public law element, inasmuch as, the original writ petitioners were seeking the implementation of Section 10(1) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (DSE Act, 1973)

In reality, the writ petitioners sought implementation of the circular/order/notification dated October 17, 2017 issued by DOE requiring the schools to pay teachers’ wages in line with the 7th CPC through the underlying writ petition. In reality, the Supreme Court has unequivocally stated the following in the case of St. Mary’s Education Society (Supra):

“75.1. An application under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a person or a body discharging public duties or public functions. The public duty cast may be either statutory or otherwise and where it is otherwise, the body or the person must be shown to owe that duty or obligation to the public involving the public law element. Similarly, for ascertaining the discharge of public function, it must be established that the body or the person was seeking to achieve the same for the collective benefit of the public or a section of it and the authority to do so must be accepted by the public.”

Hence the present writ was maintainable.

This Court further believes that, given the recurrent nature of the claim, the writ petition submitted by the original writ petitioners is not precluded by laches or delay.

In Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (supra), the Supreme Court itself said by way of an example that remedy should be given regardless of delay if the problem relates to pay payment as it does not impact third party rights.

Furthermore, because the decision in Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak v. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation (above) deals with a matter of a higher grade pay scale in the following promotional post, which is not the situation in the present issue, it is of no use to the appellant.

To sum up, it should be stated once again that the respondents in the writ case requested the payment of their entire salaries in accordance with the 7th CPC’s recommendations. According to Section 10 of the DSE Act, a recognised private school’s pay scale and allowances, medical services, pension, gratuity, provident fund, and other permitted benefits must not be less than those of the employees in the same position at the public school. According to a statement from the DOE dated October 17, 2017, all recognised schools are required to follow the 7th CPC’s recommendations in compliance with the DSE Act, 1973. at light of this, it is unquestionable that instructors at unassisted private schools are entitled to the same pay and benefits as emoluments as those of government schools, in terms of the obligation enjoined upon the private recognized schools under the DSE Act, 1973. The schools cannot evade their statutory responsibility and are bound to pay the statutory dues.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

click to view the judgement