Madhya Pradesh High Court Stays Replacement Of Contractual Vocational Trainers In Higher Secondary Schools

In an interim order passed recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court restrained the State government from appointing any new Vocational Trainers in place of already employed contractual employees in higher secondary schools. 

A single judge bench of Justice Vivek Jain in its August 2 order took note of a July 17 interim order passed by a coordinate bench of the high court which had in similar petitions restrained the State– till the next date of hearing– from making any new appointments of vocational trainers in place of the petitioners therein.

Noting that the State's counsel "could not point out any distinguishing fact" in the two matters, Justice Jain directed, "The said order (July 17) shall apply with full force to the case of present petitioners also mutatis mutandis". 

At the outset, advocate Dharmesh Chaturvedi appearing for the petitioners said that interim order has been passed in a bunch of similar pleas including in one by a coordinate bench of the high court "taking into account the undertaking given by State in earlier Writ Petitions". 

The central issue revolves around the replacement of vocational trainers who are currently employed on a contractual basis in higher secondary schools across Madhya Pradesh. 

In the connected matter, a coordinate single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi was hearing a batch of pleas challenging a July 2 order wherein an advertisement was issued for appointing Vocational Trainers replacing the petitioners appearing therein. 

Before Justice Dwivedi, senior advocate Shashank Shekhar appearing for the petitioners argued that the state's advertisement for new vocational trainers is contrary to previous judicial orders. He cited the high court division bench's ruling in a 2021 petition wherein the court had granted protection to the petitioners therein based on an "undertaking" given by the state's counsel. He said that the the high court in its 2021 decision had observed that the petitioners therein, having been found fit with the requisite qualifications, should not be required to undergo any examination once again. 

The petitioners in the connected matter had said that the advertisement calls for the "same qualification" which they already possess and by the petitioners cannot be replaced by new candidates by "inviting fresh applications". They submitted that the division bench had "categorically observed that there should be a one time scrutiny
 to ascertain the qualification of the candidates and after being satisfied, the petitioners would be allowed to continue. Therefore, fresh scrutiny, of the petitioners "cannot be conducted" and they should not be "compelled to participate in the fresh selection process". 

Meanwhile appearing for the state, Deputy Advocate General B.D. Singh argued that keeping in view the advancements in technology, "more qualified and educated persons" are required to be appointed to implement the vocational training programme. Hence, Singh said, a fresh selection can be conducted in which "some relaxation" would be provided to the petitioners therein, to "compete with the other new more qualified candidates". 

"...if they succeed even after granting some privileges then they would be allowed to continue," Singh submitted. 

Countering this the petitioner's contended that Singh's statement is "without any foundation" because in the advertisement under challenge, applications have been invited from open market candidates having same qualification. They said that when an appointment is to be made only on a contract basis, the  petitioners therein "who are contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees".

After considering the submissions of the parties, Justice Dwivedi in its July 17 interim order had asked the counsel for the respondents–including the state to file its response in 10 days satisfying the court that "selection is required in the developed circumstance and the State is required to appoint more qualified persons". 

"However, till the next date of hearing, no further action shall be taken by the respondents in respect of appointment of new Vocational Trainers in place of petitioners," the high court had said. 

Case title: Deepak Dahiya And Others Vs Union Of India And Others

Citation: WP-20598-2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order