Bashir A. Kirmani, J.
1. Briefly stated, the case of petitioners in all the three petitions, who are serving as Teachers/Masters in respondent - Education department, is that quite sometime before they were deputed as Zonal Resource Persons (ZRPs)/Cluster Resource Persons (CRPs) to augment the support structure for an educational scheme promulgated by Government of Indial under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and after receiving requisite training in that behalf were discharging their duties as such to the satisfaction of concerned Project Director but instantly respondents have passed the impugned order bearing No. E-du/Sli/NC/390/2007 dated 23.10.2007 wherein they are sought to be relieved of the assignment presumptively for bringing in another batch of Masters/Teachers to perform the job. Aggrieved thereby, they seek quashment of the order seeking to repatriate' them to their original positions. In their reply filed in SWP No. 1485/2007 and adopted by respondents' counsel for other two petitions also, it has been pleaded that in terms of the governing scheme respondent-department is obliged to extend the opportunity of acting as ZRPs and CRPs to largest number of teachers available in the Education Department so that they could acquire the benefit of capacity building amongst teachers and, as such, those already deputed on the job were required to be replaced by other teachers.
2. During course of submissions both the appearing counsel have reiterated the contents of their pleadings as condensed above.
3. I have heard learned Counsel and considered the matter. It appears that for achieving the objective of universalization of elementary education according to a specific time schedule the Ministry of Human Resources Development, acting under the mandate of 86th Amendment to the Constitution of India, has initiated a programme for assuring free and compulsory education to the children in age group of 6 to 14 through a scheme known as Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan which is aimed at providing the elementary education to the target group with active community participation and management in expansion of access to educational facilities and improvements in infrastructure and quality of education etc. for which three tyre resource centers for better training of teachers appear to have been created at cluster, zonal and district level for manning which the manpower has been drawn from Education Department to be utilized as Resource Persons who would undergo trainings through workshops, seminars and expose who the teaching techniques and thereafter act as trainers of the teachers involved in imparting education in schools. The Resource Persons drawn as such working at cluster level were designated as Cluster Resource Persons while those working at zonal level as Zonal Resource Persons. It appears that for taking the programme further in its prescribed form respondent-department also drew petitioners who hold the substantive posts of teachers/masters in the respondent - department and after imparting requisite training to them in terms of the scheme using them as Resource Persons for imparting training upon other teachers. Now that the department is trying to substitute them by another batch of similar teachers with the idea of training a larger number of teachers as Resource Persons who would automatically be higher in proficiency after receipt of training etc. as aforesaid, and thereby result in improvement in the standard of teaching in the schools, petitioners are trying to thwart the attempt by seeking to have the relevant orders passed by respondent authorities challenged in these petitions overset.
4. With the aforesaid circumstantial backdrop, it certainly does not appear that the substantive capacity of petitioners has undergone any sort of administrative/official change merely by their training as Resource Persons or adjustment as ZRPs and CRPs because even while working as such they continued to hold their substantive positions and were performing the job of Resource Persons only by way of some sort of deputation or more correctly a mere assignment which does not create any vested right in them to claim continuation in job to alter the conditions of their service in any manner whatsoever nor has, as a matter of fact, any material whatsoever been brought on record to suggest that by working as Resource Persons they have somehow acquired a claim of continuity which in given circumstances if accepted would amount to creates a department within a department and definitely place petitioners in a position to monopolize the whole scheme which certainly cannot be permitted particularly because by their repatriation to original positions they do not appear to suffer either in service status or their positions or in terms of pecuniary benefits available to them and that being so, the cases of petitioners does not appear to be well founded enough to entitle them to the relief prayed for.
5. For all that has been stated above, all the three petitions captioned above are dismissed.