Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Citedby 7 docs - [View All]
Thirani Chemicals Ltd. vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 February, 2006
R.K. Patel And Co. And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Customs And ... on 8 July, 2005
Sheochandra Jha vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 9 October, 2002
State Of W.B vs Mohammed Khalid on 24 November, 1994
Thirani Chemicals Ltd. vs Dy. Cit on 24 February, 2006

User Queries
Supreme Court of India
State Of Maharashtra And Ors. vs Abdul Javed Abdul Majid And Ors. on 22 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: JT 2002 Suppl 1 SC 151, 2003 I OLR 72, RLW 2003 (1) SC 96
Bench: S Phukan, K Balakrishnan

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The Government of Maharashtra formulated a scheme namely the Shikshan Sevak Scheme for appointment of teachers on honorarium basis. These were challenged before the High Court of judicature at Bom-bay, and the division bench passed interim direction by order dated 16th August, 2000. We extract the said directions of the division bench:

"i) The G.R. would apply only to the aided institutions and the unaided schools, junior colleges etc. will not be covered by the scheme.

ii) The G.R. will not apply to teachers who are working as part-timers on clockwork basis and they will be paid the salary as before.

iii) G.R. will not apply to teachers who are declared as surplus and required to be located and also to teachers who had worked as permanent and confirmed teacher in the past and who has resigned from service and seeking a fresh employment.

iv) G.R. will also be inapplicable to teachers working on a temporary basis against reserve posts for backward class and they will continue to receive salary as per the MEPS rules till the duly selected candidates from backward classes is available or teacher concerned is absorbed in service according to the relevant rules and regulations.

v) Shikshan Sevak will get honorarium of Rs. 3,000/- for primary teachers (std. V-VII) (as against Rs. 2500/-), Rs. 4000/- for secondary teachers (as against Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 5000/- for higher secondary teachers (as against Rs. 3500/-.

vi) The Shikshan Sevak will be appointed for a duration of 3 years and upon successful completion of the said period, he/she will be absorbed in service and treated as a regular teacher within the meaning of MEPS Act, 1977 and MEPS Rules, 1981.

vii) The honorarium of Shikshan Sevak as fixed above shall be payable on a month to month basis without any deductions.

viii) The period of 3 years shall be conducted for the purpose of pension and the other retirement benefits.

ix) The scheme will be inapplicable to the head of the institution who will be appointed in accordance with the MEPS Rules, 1981 and entitled to receive the salary as per the prescribed scale.

x) The appointment of the Shikshan Sevak will be made by following procedure prescribed under the MEPS Rules i.e. advertisement and interviews.

xi) No untrained teacher will be appointed to the post of Shikshan Sevak however, in case of post reserved for backward classes, if trained teacher is not available, the post may be filled in by an untrained teacher subject to an appropriate undertaking that he/she will acquire the necessary qualification within the prescribed period.

xii) Lady Shikshan Sevak will be entitled to maternity leave as prescribed under the MEPS Rules, 1981."

3. In the said order it is also stated that the learned advocate general of the state assured the court that the state government will declare a modified scheme within two weeks from the receipt of the copy of order.

4. Subsequently, another writ petition was filed before a division bench of the same High Court at Aurangabad bench regarding the same scheme. The division bench after noticing the earlier order of the division bench at Bombay passed the following order: "We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the division bench of this Court (at Bombay), save and except the following modifications, which shall be made applicable to the Shikshan Sevaks to be appointed in the primary schools all over the state."

5. Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned solicitor general appearing for the State of Maharashtra has submitted that.the scheme as modified by the orders of the division bench at Bombay is working to the satisfaction of all but the state government is finding it difficult to implement the scheme in view of the subsequent order of the division bench of the same High Court.

6. In our view, the division bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad ought not to have disturbed the earlier order passed by a coordinate bench of the same High Court at Bombay. In order to maintain judicial discipline as the division bench at Aurangabad was in disagreement with the said order, the matter should have been directed to be placed before the chief justice for passing appropriate orders.

7. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Aurangabad bench is not sustainable and accordingly it is quashed.

8. We, however, make it clear that the appointments of the respondents as primary teachers would not be effected. The appeal is allowed and impugned order is set aside. No costs.