J. Mogilaiah Vs. Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Agency and ors.

J. Mogilaiah vs Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Agency and ors.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Dec 27, 2005

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/444648

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/444648
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
Decided On: Dec 27, 2005
Case Number: WP No. 26851 of 2005
Subject: Service
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation...

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

J. Mogilaiah

Advocate M. Kondal Rao, Adv.

Respondent

Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Agency and ors.

Advocate Government Pleader for Social Welfare

Legal References

Reported In: 2006(2)ALD454

Excerpt

.....schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as..........employee was entitled to be regularized, with effect from the date which falls, on completion of 5 years, and not earlier thereto. he contends that the orders passed by this court, on an earlier occasion, operate as res judicata.5. in the impugned order, it was observed that under g.o. ms. no. 275, social welfare department, dated 5.11.1986, posts in ashram schools, in the scheduled areas, were required to be filled by scheduled tribe candidates, and the petitioner, who belongs to backward class community, was not eligible to be appointed on daily wage basis, at all. that, however, is besides the issue, in the present context. a perusal of the relief claimed by the petitioner in w.p. no. 28537 of 1996, discloses that he wanted the respondents herein, to regularize his service, with effect from 25.2.1996, on which date he has completed 5 years of uninterrupted service. an interim order was passed therein, and the petitioner filed contempt case, alleging non-implementation thereof. it was at that stage that the first respondent passed order dated 6.8.1997, appointing the petitioner as a teacher, on regular basis. the same was taken note of, and the writ petition was closed on 3.11.1999.6. in the teeth of the prayer in w.p.no. 28537 of 1996, it was not open to the petitioner to claim regularization from any point of time, before the completion of 5 years from the date of initial engagement. at any rate, if he had any grievance in this regard, he ought to have pointed out the same, when w.p.no. 28537 of 1996 was disposed of. the order passed therein, operates as res judicata.7. the petitioner woke up after 5 years, and made a speculative representation, claiming regularization with effect from 26.2.1991, as well as consequential monetary benefits. to say the least, the claim of the petitioner is preposterous, and he has indulged in vexatious litigation. even now, he is not able to show any basis for his claim. the only object for the petitioner appears to be to.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. The petitioner was appointed as Daily Wage Teacher, by the District Tribal Welfare Officer, the second respondent herein, on 26.2.1991, and was posted at Ashram Upper Primary School, Komatipally. Alleging that he is entitled to be appointed on regular basis, he filed Writ Petition No. 28537 of 1996, and an interim order was passed on 30.12.1996. Petitioner filed Contempt Case No. 538 of 1997, alleging that the interim orders were not complied with. At that stage, the first respondent issued orders dated 6.8.1997, appointing the petitioner on regular basis in a scale of pay, against an existing vacancy. Subsequently, his appointment was regularized, through proceedings dated 14.9.2001, with effect from 6.8.1997.

2. Petitioner made a representation dated 14.12.2004, seeking regularization with effect from 26.2.1991, and for payment of the consequential benefits. Alleging that the representation was not considered, he filed W.P. No. 25228 of 2004. The writ petition was disposed of on 31.12.2004, directing the respondents therein to pass appropriate orders. In obedience to the Court, the first respondent passed an order dated 24.7.2005, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The same is challenged in this writ petition.

3. Sri M. Kondal Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was appointed way back on 26.2.1991 as a Teacher on daily wage basis, and as per the Scheme, prevalent at the relevant point of time, he was entitled to be regularized, with effect from the date of initial engagement. He submits that the reasons furnished by the first respondent in rejecting the claim cannot be sustained in law.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, on the other hand, submits that the claim of the petitioner is absolutely without any basis. He contends that even according to the relevant Government Orders, a daily wage employee was entitled to be regularized, with effect from the date which falls, on completion of 5 years, and not earlier thereto. He contends that the orders passed by this Court, on an earlier occasion, operate as res judicata.

5. In the impugned order, it was observed that under G.O. Ms. No. 275, Social Welfare Department, dated 5.11.1986, posts in Ashram Schools, in the scheduled areas, were required to be filled by Scheduled Tribe candidates, and the petitioner, who belongs to Backward Class community, was not eligible to be appointed on daily wage basis, at all. That, however, is besides the issue, in the present context. A perusal of the relief claimed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 28537 of 1996, discloses that he wanted the respondents herein, to regularize his service, with effect from 25.2.1996, on which date he has completed 5 years of uninterrupted service. An interim order was passed therein, and the petitioner filed contempt case, alleging non-implementation thereof. It was at that stage that the first respondent passed order dated 6.8.1997, appointing the petitioner as a teacher, on regular basis. The same was taken note of, and the writ petition was closed on 3.11.1999.

6. In the teeth of the prayer in W.P.No. 28537 of 1996, it was not open to the petitioner to claim regularization from any point of time, before the completion of 5 years from the date of initial engagement. At any rate, if he had any grievance in this regard, he ought to have pointed out the same, when W.P.No. 28537 of 1996 was disposed of. The order passed therein, operates as res judicata.

7. The petitioner woke up after 5 years, and made a speculative representation, claiming regularization with effect from 26.2.1991, as well as consequential monetary benefits. To say the least, the claim of the petitioner is preposterous, and he has indulged in vexatious litigation. Even now, he is not able to show any basis for his claim. The only object for the petitioner appears to be to derive more and more benefits, at any cost. This Court does not approve the conduct of the petitioner.

8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, with costs of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand), payable to the first respondent.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 2005 Same Parties J. Mogilaiah vs Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Developmen... Same Subject Service Same Judge L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

Service