Full Judgment
W.P.No.4494/2000 & W.P.No.608/2000 20/2/2014 Shri Raman Patel, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt.
Adv.for the respondents State Government.
As common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions they are being disposed of by this common order.
In both these cases petitioners were working in the Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission in District Sidhi.
By the impugned order dated 1.10.2000 passed by the Collector of the District concerned who is also the Director and Implementing Authority of the Mission, as their services have been terminated, these writ petitions were filed in the year 2000.
According to the petitioners they were appointed for working in the Mission under the Shiksha Guarantee Scheme Introduced for providing basic education to children particularly in rural area and under the Education Guarantee Scheme they were appointed in non formal education centres operated in the remote areas by the Panchayat concerned.
It is said that they have been appointed and are working for more than five years and now abruptly their services are being terminated only on the ground that the scheme and Mission has come to an end.
Contending that the alternate scheme has been implemented and certain Education Programme have been established under the District Shaksharta Samiti and the case of the petitioners are not being considered for further appointment/ absorption in the substituted scheme, petitioners have sought for interference into the matter.
Learned counsel argued that employees working in the Education Guarantee Scheme in various districts have been adjusted and granted appointment as Shiksha Karmis or any other establishment or scheme and similar benefit is not granted to the petitioners in Sidhi District, this writ petition has been filed.
Respondents have filed a detailed return and they point out that Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission was a temporary scheme sponsored by the Central Government and financed by the Central Government and the State Government through the Mission Director, namely, the District Collector has implemented the scheme.
The scheme was for conducting education and for primary level education in the remote areas.
It is said that the scheme has been closed.
The Central Government has discontinued the scheme w.e.f.31st March, 1999.
Finance for the scheme have been withdrawn.
Subsequently, it was extended upto 30th September 1999 and after 30th September 1999, as the scheme has been discontinued, it is said that the petitioneRs.services were brought to an end.
It is pointed out that a new scheme namely "Padna Badna Andolan" was introduced and the entire process was undertaken in the said scheme.
It is said that the subsequent scheme is also wound up and now the Gram Panchayats are carrying out the activities through appointment of Shiksha Karmis and other Contract Teachers for which statutory rules have been framed.
According to the respondents as the petitioneRs.appointment was for a particular scheme and as the scheme itself has now come to an end, no further indulgence into the matter can be made.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the submissions made it is clear that the petitioner's appointment was in a temporary scheme financed by the Central Government.
Their appointment was on contract basis, specifically with the scheme, the appointment was conterminous with the life of scheme and the scheme having already come to an end, now in the absence of any statutory right existing in favour of the petitioners to seek continuation of their appointment, no mandamus can be issued.
Appointment of the petitioners were on contract basis on a particular scheme and once the scheme has come to an end and there is no constitutional or statutory right accruing to the petitioners to seek further appointment in any other scheme or appointment, a mandamus by this Court cannot be issued.
If any alternate scheme has come into force or if any other provision is applicable where some benefit can be granted to the petitioneRs.it is for the State Government or the competent authority to look into the same and consider grant of benefit to the petitioner.
As far as a writ Court is concerned, once the appointment of the petitioners are found to be on contract basis in a particular scheme and when the scheme itself or appointment has come to an end in the absence of statutory rules, regulation or provision of law being available, which is shown to be followed, no mandamus can be issued by this Court.
Accordingly, taking note of the totality of circumstances, for the present, this Court does not deem it appropriate to issue any mandamus.
However, if the petitioners feel that their claim for working in continuation can be considered in alternate scheme or provision applicable, they may represent to the State Government and it would be for the State Government to consider their claim and take action in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations and findings, for the present, finding no case for indulgence into the matter in a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, this petition is dismissed.
(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE MRS.mishra