MP High Court Declines Reinstatement Of "Guruji" Teachers In Schools Running Without Approvals But Directs Payment Of Honorarium For Time Served
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently held the appointment of "Gurujis" in schools running without approval by the competent authority, as 'invalid'.The order came in a writ petition moved by several teachers–appointed under the Madhya Pradesh Education Guarantee Scheme, challenging the order passed by Collector of Singrauli, which questioned the validity of the appointments and...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently held the appointment of "Gurujis" in schools running without approval by the competent authority, as 'invalid'.
The order came in a writ petition moved by several teachers–appointed under the Madhya Pradesh Education Guarantee Scheme, challenging the order passed by Collector of Singrauli, which questioned the validity of the appointments and denied their continuation in service.
The Collector in his order however found that though the schools were being run without any prior approval but petitioners had performed their duties, and hence were entitled to honorarium for the said period.
A single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi upheld the Collector's findings that the schools where the petitioners were employed were not approved by the competent authority under the Scheme, therefore, their appointments as Gurujis were invalid.
While it declined to issue any order allowing the petitioners to continue in their roles as Gurujis the high court however, directed the payment of honorarium for the period during which the petitioners had performed their duties, emphasizing that this part of the Collector's earlier order had never been challenged or overturned.
Justice Dwivedi said, “I am of the opinion that the schools in which petitioners have been performing their duties as Guruji since not found approved as per the required provisions mentioned under the Scheme, the appointment of petitioners cannot be said to be a valid appointment and therefore, honorarium if any cannot be directed to be paid to them.Although, duties have been performed by the petitioners for the period as has been considered by the Collector in his order and directed that honorarium be paid to the petitioners, the said order has never been assailed and set aside by any of the authority, therefore, I am disposing of this petition directing respondent No.8 to comply with the order passed by the respondent No.3 and if petitioners have not been paid honorarium as per the prevalent rate for the period they have performed their duties, the same be paid to them.”
For context, under the scheme, Gurujis are designated teachers who are appointed to provide preliminary school facility to children specially in remote areas. As per the scheme One Teacher would be provided for a group of 40 children and, in tribal areas for a group of every 25 children. If the number of children exceed 50 then another Guruji will be provided so as to maintain a low teacher pupil ratio. The Education Guarantee Scheme (EGS) teacher will be designated as 'Guruji' and would be a local person.
The Court stated that the Collector's order dated September 26, 2011, had already recognized the petitioners' service and mandated payment of honorarium, a decision that had not been set aside by any higher authority. The high court further said that if the honorarium has been already paid then no further payment is required to be made to them.
"It is also the duty of the Collector (respondent No.3) to see whether order passed by his predecessor on 26.09.2011 has been complied with or not. If not complied, make all endeavours to get it complied and make payments to the petitioners," the high court underscored.
The case was concerning the validity of the petitioners' appointments as Gurujis in schools that were not formally approved under the Scheme. The Scheme ensures education in remote areas, and mandated that schools must be approved by the relevant project office. The Gurujis must complete the requisite training before being allowed to serve.
The petitioners contended that they had performed their duties for several years and the Panchayat has already given the proposal to open the said schools under the Scheme and therefore, there is no reason for not paying the honorarium to the petitioners and to discontinue them from the post of Guruji.
The respondents said that the petitioners' appointments were invalid because the schools were never approved, and the petitioners had not undergone the necessary training. The respondents cited an order dated September 17, 2012, which explicitly stated that only approved schools could operate under the Scheme and that Gurujis in unapproved schools were ineligible for any benefits, including honorarium.
Case title: Bihari Lal Shah And Others Vs. State Of MP
Citation: WRIT PETITION NO.19551/2012