Kamat & Ors Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors  Insc 51 (5 February 2003)
V. Patil & Arijit Pasayat.
Appeal Nos. 6547-51/97, 3986-92/99, 4524-25/99, 5690/2000 and 500/99 WITH
Civil Appeal No. 1049 of 2003 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 7669/99) AND Civil
Appeal No. 1047-48 of 2003 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.9078-79/99) SHIVARAJ V.
granted in special leave petitions.
appellants in these appeals were appointed as teachers for various schools run
by Zilla Parishads after being selected by Betterment Committees on payment of
honorarium of Rs. 200-300 per month in the year 1988-89. They moved the State
Government for regularization of their services in the year 1991. The State
Government rejected their claims by the order dated 27.2.1992. Thereafter they
filed writ petitions in the High Court for quashing the said Government order
and also for direction to treat them as having been regularly appointed in the
service of the respective Zilla Parishads and also to pay the arrears of salary
and allowances from the date of their initial appointment till the date of
payment. In the writ petitions, they pleaded that they were all working as
teachers in primary and high schools on honorarium of Rs. 200-300 per month.
According to them, Zilla Parishads of Dakshina Kannada, Kodagu and Shimoga
passed resolutions with certain conditions as authorized by the Government by
its circular dated 15.10.1987 to open new primary and high schools in rural
areas. One of the conditions was that Zilla Parishad will appoint one trained
graduate teacher and the remaining teachers shall be appointed by the public.
It was also asserted in the writ petitions that in view of the aforesaid
conditions it is the School Management Committee presided by Mandal Pradhan
that had appointed teachers to teach students in Zilla Parishad primary and
high schools. It was their further case that Government granted post facto
approval to all these teachers by its communication dated 9.7.1991. To put in
nutshell, their case seems to be that they are all qualified to be as teachers;
were appointed at the instance of respective Zilla Parishads in accordance with
Government circulars and in accordance with resolutions passed by Zilla Parishads;
having taken their services for nearly five to eight years, State Government
and Zilla Parishads were bound to regularize their services from the date of
their initial appointment and were required to pay arrears of salary on par
with that of regularly recruited teachers in both primary and high schools.
writ petitions were resisted on various grounds including that writ petitions
were not maintainable.
contended that writ petitioners were honorary teachers appointed by School
Management Committee and some of them by Pradhan of Mandal Panchayat on
honorarium of Rs. 200-300 per month; they were neither appointed by Zilla Parishads
nor their appointments were approved by the State Government. It was further
contended that the appointments of the teachers were not against the sanctioned
posts and at no point of time State Government had approved their appointments.
it was strongly contended that writ petitioners were all teachers working in
the schools on honorary basis and honorarium was paid by School Management
Committees; as such they were not entitled to any one of the reliefs sought in
the writ petitions.
learned Single Judge, after considering the respective contentions and keeping
in view the decisions of the High Court as well as of this Court, disposed of
the writ petitions giving the following directions:-
That if the petitioners apply for appointment at the time of making regular
appointment, their application will be considered subject to suitability,
eligibility and reservation policy, giving due weightage for the period of
service said to have been rendered by them and deducting the period of their
honorary service from their age, for determining the question of age bar.
for any reason, the schools in which petitioners are working have been approved
by the State Govt. in their subsequent orders, the Selection Committee while
selecting teachers for regular appointment will give whatever possible weightage
to those teachers keeping in view their selfless service for nearly 5 to 8
years in those institutions.
Before parting with the case, it should be mentioned that this Court fully sympathises
with the cruel fate of these unfortunate teachers but this court is helpless in
view of the earlier decisions of this Court and the Apex Court.
are restrained from terminating the services of the petitioner till regular
appointments are made in the institution in which petitioners are working.
the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own
costs." Not being satisfied with and aggrieved by the order of the learned
Single Judge, the writ petitioners filed writ appeals before the Division Bench
of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, finding no merit in
the appeals, dismissed them by the impugned order affirming the order of the
learned Single Judge. Hence, these appeals.
learned counsel for the appellants in their arguments reiterated the
submissions that were made before the High Court. They contended that having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of length of
service the appellants have already put in, they ought to have been granted reliefs
by the High Court. The learned counsel also added that in view of the
amendments to Rules in 1997 even honorary or part time teachers are entitled to
opposition, the learned counsel for the respondents made submissions supporting
the impugned order. Pointing out to certain statements made in the counter, the
learned counsel submitted that keeping in view the directions given by the High
Court, their cases were considered. According to the learned counsel, having
regard to the facts of these cases and the legal position as stated in the
order of the learned Single Judge, the impugned order does not call for any
interference. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that
the State Government accepting the directions given by the High Court and
keeping in view the amended rules considered the cases of the appellants and
few of them even got the benefit.
not in dispute that the appellants were appointed on payment of honorarium of Rs.
200-300 per month by School Betterment Committees and in some cases by the
Presidents of Mandal Panchayats; the appointment orders do not indicate that
they were made either by Zilla Parishad or officers of the State Government
against any sanctioned post. We repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the
appellants on what basis or foundation in law the appellants made their claim for
regularization and under what rules their recruitment was made so as to govern
their service conditions.
were not in a position to answer except saying that the appellants have been
working for quite some time in various schools started pursuant to resolutions
passed by Zilla Parishads in view of the Government orders and that their cases
need to be considered sympathetically. It is clear from the order of the
learned single Judge and looking to the very directions given a very
sympathetic view was taken. We do not find it either just or proper to show any
further sympathy in the given facts and circumstances of the case. While being
sympathetic to the persons who come before the court the courts cannot at the
same time be unsympathetic to the large number of eligible persons waiting for
a long time in a long queue seeking employment. The learned Single Judge in
this view, rightly so in our opinion, held that "in such situation it is
difficult to accept the plea of the petitioners that they were appointed
against regular post and appointment orders would clearly indicate that the
appointment of the teachers was purely temporary and on honorarium basis
subject to its approval by the State Government and petitioners have not
produced any document to show that their appointment has been approved by State
Government. Hence, petitioners are not entitled to regularization. Since
petitioners have worked continuously as teachers, the services rendered by them
is entitled to be considered at the time of regular appointment."
learned Single Judge, having noticed a few decisions of the High Court held
that the plea of the appellants could not be accepted. It appears to us that
the learned Single Judge, taking a sympathetic view, gave the directions while
disposing of the writ petitions, which are already extracted above. The
decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. vs. Tejram Parashramji Bombhate
& Ors. [(1991) 3 SCC 11] is almost on similar facts. In the said judgment,
this Court observed that the teachers who were paid honorarium from out of fees
from children and other donations, not by or on behalf of Central Government,
were not entitled for regularization on par with Government teachers and the
court or tribunal cannot compel the Government to change its policy and accord
sanction to the schools which involves financial burden on the Government. Para 5 of the said judgment reads:- "5. Secondly,
the respondents are not paid by the Central Government. They are not holding
any appointment under the Central Government. There is no relationship of
master and servant between the Central Government and the respondents. The
respondents are employed in the Secondary School by local arrangement made by
the officers of the ordnance factory. It is not proved that how the Central
Government is accountable to such arrangement made by the local officers."
The respondents, accepting the directions given by the learned Single Judge as
affirmed by the Division Bench, followed them and in that process some persons
got benefit of the directions. Many of the appellants could not get the
benefits of the directions in spite of giving consideration and weightage to
the services rendered by them. As is clear from the directions of the learned
Single Judge, sympathizing with the appellants, their services were also
protected till regular appointments were made. Under these circumstances, we do
not find any good or valid ground to interfere with the impugned order. This
Court had passed interim orders in these matters directing the Zilla Parishads
to pay the basic pay of Rs. 1520/- per month to the appellants from November,
1995 upto-date and continue to pay till the disposal of these appeals.
learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the payment made pursuant to
the interim orders passed by this Court to the appellants shall not be
this view, we make it clear that the respondents shall not make any recovery of
amount from the appellants paid to them by way of salary pursuant to the
interim orders passed by this Court. Thus finding no merit, the appeals are
dismissed subject to what is stated above. No costs.