How Long Will Adhocism Continue In Teaching Facility? If Teachers Don't Have Job Security, How Will They Discharge Their Duty?': SC [Read Order]
story
"How long, how far will adhocism continue as regards the teaching faculty? If teachers don't have job security, how will they discharge their duty of educating students, particularly in such (difficult) areas?", asked Justice Ajay Rastogi on Thursday.The bench, presided over by Justice U. U. Lalit, was hearing a SLP against a August 14 judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, where the...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
"How long, how far will adhocism continue as regards the teaching faculty? If teachers don't have job security, how will they discharge their duty of educating students, particularly in such (difficult) areas?", asked Justice Ajay Rastogi on Thursday.
The bench, presided over by Justice U. U. Lalit, was hearing a SLP against a August 14 judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, where the court had set aside the appointment of teachers inducted through the school management committee (SMC), further directing the state government to engage regular teachers against the substantive posts within six weeks.
Senior Advocate C. A. Sundaram, appearing for the petitioner Period Basis SMC Teachers' Association, explained that the members of the association are full-time teachers but contractual, teaching for any number of periods in a day, and that there is a lack of regular teachers in the hilly areas of HP.
"Various schemes have been introduced by the state towards regularisation...the SMC scheme is covered under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules...the scheme itself is an open process...Other schemes are outside the Rules but they are still affirmed", he advanced.
"We are people who have been there for 10 years. We are qualified...The state also wanted to extend our tenure because it doesn't have the 2000+ teachers needed...amidst such shortage of teachers, there are no classes for certain students", urged Mr. Sundaram.
"Lakhs and lakhs of people are qualified for various posts. Every qualified person cannot, as right, claim appointment", observed Justice Rastogi.
The bench sought to know the state's stand from the concerned counsel Abhinav Mukherjee.
Mr. Mukherjee apprised the court that even the state wished to challenge the impugned order of the High Court, and that a SLP would be filed shortly on behalf of the state. He referred to the Apex Court April, 2020 decision in Chandra Mohan Negi's case, where the top court had rejected the challenge against the decision of the Himachal Pradesh Government to regularise teachers who were appointed under under Primary Assistant Teachers (PAT) scheme, Para Teachers Policy and other schemes. The bench comprising Justices Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and R. Subash Reddy had noted that it is clear all the persons who were recruited under the schemes were fully qualified as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules.
Justice Lalit noted that while the emoluments payable to the petitioners are Rs. 10,000-15,000 per month, the salaries payable to the regular teachers were higher, Rs. 21,000 being the lower scale.
"This is probably why the state is also coming in challenge. It wants to keep the same budget", remarked the bench.
The bench was not inclined to stay the impugned judgment until the state has filed its SLP and has been heard- "The moment the state is supporting your cause, until the contents are worked out and there have been hearings, we cannot grant a stay"
Adjourning the matter to October 8, the bench sought details on the number of teachers working under the scheme in question, whether working in towns or districts and the emolument situation.
The HP High Court had remarked that "The pedestal of Articles 14 and 16, of, the Constitution of India, does, ensure(s) to every aspirant, qua his becoming purveyed, or hence his/their becoming enabled, to, propagate the sacrosanct right, of, equality, of, opportunity, to at least, enter the arena of competition, or to occur, in the zone of consideration". It had ruled that there is a "palpable open breach of the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India" by the state authorities in inducting the teachers through the SMC.
[Read Order]