हाईकोर्ट ने अतिथि अध्यापको की वे सभी 24 याचिकाएँ ख़ारिज कर दी जिनमे
वर्त्तमान रेगुलर भर्ती हेतु 220 दिनों को एक साल के बराबर अनुभव मानने की
प्रार्थना की गई थी,आदेश का अंतिम भाग
पढ़े(CWP No. 21576/2012)-----
"A closer look at the memos dated 12.12.2008 and 27.10.2010 bare
out that the only purpose of the first instructions was to devise the
method of calculation of experience in issuing certificates to GFTs in
terms of weeks. The object of issuing experience certificates was only
for the purpose of adjustment of displaced GFTs who may be interested in
continuing to serve as such. The experience certificates were to be
issued in the prescribed proforma. All the experience certificates so
issued in the present and connected cases fall short of 4 years
experience by application of the formula adopted.
The next memo dated 27.10.2010 of which much has been made
at the bar is save and limited to the issue of enhancement of
remuneration of teachers engaged on guest faculty basis. It was only for
purposes of giving GFTs a better deal on fixed salary payable every
month that ocassioned working out and adopting the fictional method of
220 days and to link it with the requisite days in a year that all
teachers normally discharge duties. At the end of the day, when
Government equated 220 days to be counted and reckone as a year of
service it was not meant for anything more than
'adjustment' and 'enhancement of remuneration' only to improve their lot
and give a certain stability of tenure till they were replaced by
regularly recruited teachers or found their way to direct recruitment on
merit. The petitioners have not qualified the HTET/STET as required
under the prescribed rules of service. The one time exemption granted by
the State from the operation of the rules and in substitution thereof
by a relaxation awarded, the experience of 4 years introduced as an
equalizer only to equate
experience with qualifications and the prescribed Tests which were
mandatory requirements under the unamended rules. As an exemption, the
provision works as a concession granted by the State. It is well settled
that concessions have to be strictly construed only to further the
cause or object sought to be achieved by them.
It is not enough to say that the formula adopted by the Government is
irrational so long as it is not arbitrary or
whimsical and operates uniformly on all the competing interests or the
range of selection through reasonable classification. It cannot be said
that the provision is illegal, unconstitutional or arbitrary. It is no
more than a workable solution to a problem arising out of operation of
the guest faculty system introduced to meet an extraordinary situation
arising from failure of the State in timely filling up substantive posts
of teachers through direct recruitment consistent with Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution. The Government may have been remiss in not
appointing teachers through direct recruitment on regular basis and
letting a GFT system infest the educational field but that does not mean
that the formula adopted is absurd as no reasonably prudent person
would not adopt as an alternative measure to
meet emergent situation in relaxation of rule by laying down a
prescribed format for calculating experience as the rule making thought
fit as substitute qualification brought about by statutory amendment to
the rules. There is also no direct challenge laid or reason given as to
why experience of GFTs cannot be counted in weeks and therefore the
attack appears to be blunted on this score. It is not for the Court to
dissect the formula of working out
experience in the prescribed format as it is a matter which rests in the
domain of policy making. Laying down policy is the pregorative of
Government and only if such policy is perverse or irrational or
discriminatory then alone judicial review can be entertained. What the
policy is and what it ought to be are distant relatives and it is not
for the Court to bridge the gap, if any. It has not been argued before
this Court that the experience certificates in the the prescribed format
are not based on the method adopted in the policy instructions.
I do not find any substance or life in this petition and in the
connected cases and would dismiss them. Dismissed accordingly.
No costs."
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
JUDGE
18.12.2013
No comments:
Post a Comment