Sunil Ambwani, A.C.J:— The appellant-petitioner was engaged as ‘Vidhyarthi Mitra’, on contract in the year 2006 and thereafter to teach the students in Government Primary School, Chhipi, District Jalore. His services were dispensed with on completion of three months, after which, he was re-appointed on contract in the year 2009 and worked upto January 2010.
2. The appellants in other Special Appeal are amongst a large number of persons, who were appointed as ‘Vidhyarthi Mitras’, in the School of Elementary Education and the Schools of Secondary Education on the vacancies of Teacher Gr. III, Senior Teachers and Lecturers on contract for specified period, awaiting regular appointment by the State Government and Panchayats in the vacancies.
3. A large number of writ petitions were filed by Vidhyarthi Mitras to allow them to continue until regular appointments are made. A batch of writ petitions led by S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 4652/2009 connected with 362 petitions was decided by Jaipur Bench of this Court on 08.09.2009, declaring the last extension to be arbitrary and illegal; and the consequential automatic termination orders were set aside. The respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioners for continuation in service till regularly selected candidates from RPSC/persons selected and recommended by DPC for promotion are made available in the light of the observations made in the judgment. It was observed that in case the regularly selected candidates from RPSC/persons selected and recommended by RPSC for promotion are made available, then the respondents can terminate services of the petitioners after preparation of the seniority list on the State level as per their date of appointment and merit assigned to them by following the principle of ‘last come first go’ to the extent of availability of selected candidates keeping in view the interest of the present students and prospective students.
4. In Devendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 2579/2009) and other 502 connected petitions, decided on 15.05.2009, the judgment in S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 4652/2009 was followed.
5. A Division Bench of this Court while issuing notices on the special appeals preferred by the State Government, dismissed the special appeals preferred by the petitioners vide judgment dated 17.09.2009 in Rajendra Kumar Saini v. State of Rajasthan: (2010 (1) WLC 171).
6. In Prahlad Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan: (2010 (3) WLC 619), the writ petitions were disposed of with directions that cases of the petitioners for transfer and absorption under the Rationalisation and Equalisation Policy in the Blocks/Tehsils and Districts as required by the Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner dated 26.06.2010 will be considered but shall not confer any right on the petitioners serving as Vidhyarthi Mitras to continue in the said position after the end of the academic session 2010-2011 unless the State Page: 2394Government itself takes a decision otherwise in this regard. The directions were given in respect of Vidhyarthi Mitras who had worked in the academic years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 including those who had not worked on the academic year 2009-2010. They were not held entitled to regularisation but if such Vidhyarthi Mitras make representations for the academic year 2010-2011 their cases were directed to be considered for re-employment.
7. The petitioner as well as other Vidhyarthi Mitras aggrieved by the termination of their services and refusal to continue them pursuant to the decision taken by the State Government, filed the writ petitions giving rise to this special appeal claiming the reliefs as were given in Prahlad Kumar's case.
8. Learned Single Judge, by a detailed and erudite judgment, while taking into consideration the entire gamut of Service Rules and the norms laid down by the National Council for Teachers Education (‘NCTE’) established under the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993; Article 21A inserted vide Constitution (Eighty Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002; the enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009; and the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andhra Kesri Education Society v. Director of School Education: (1989) 1 SCC 392 : AIR 1989 SC 1983 and L. Muthu Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu : (2000) 7 SCC 618, has held that with the change in law and the notification dated 23.08.2010 issued under Section 23 of the National Council of Teachers Education Act, by the NCTE, which has been declared as Academic Authority authorised by the Central Government by notification, it is not legally permissible to employ the teachers who have not passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (‘TET’) which is to be conducted by appropriate government in accordance with the guidelines framed by NCTE. It was also found that NCTE has already framed guidelines for conducting TET, which provides for academic qualifications; and that such qualifications have been incorporated by the State Government under Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (‘the Rules of 1996’) quoted in the judgment.
9. The perceptible change in law, as noticed by learned Single Judge, has also been accepted by the State of Rajasthan by amending Rules of 1996 and Section 89 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (‘Act of 1994’) by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2000 after which it was no longer possible to allow any ad hoc arrangement to be continued. Learned Single Judge found that in view of the change in law by constitutional amendment and by regulations framed by NCTE by notification dated 23.08.2010 and amendments in the rules related to recruitment of teachers in the State of Rajasthan, the scheme of Shiksha Mitra which was an ad hoc scheme as stop gap arrangement until recruitment is made, has become unconstitutional. It is useful to quote the observations made by learned Single Judge in paragraphs 26 to 39 as follows:—
“26. It is to be noticed that as per Rule 263 of the Rules of 1996, specifically provides that subject to the provisions of the Rules and the directions of the Government, if any, the Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad shall determine and intimate the Committee (District Establishment Committee) every year the number of vacancies anticipated under each category during the year and the number of Page: 2395persons likely to be recruited by each method. That apart, Rule 284(1) of the Rules of 1996 mandates that in case no selection has been made or no person selected by the Committee is available at any time for filling a vacancy, appointment may be made by the Appointing Authority on urgent temporary basis for a period not exceeding six months provided that such person shall be appointed only on contract basis with prior approval of the District Establishment Committee in case of Panchayats and approval of the State Government in case of Panchayat Samiti/Zila Parishad. Besides, as per Rule 284(2), if it is proposed to fill the vacancy by direct recruitment temporarily nearest Employment Exchange may be asked to send names of persons possessing required qualification at least five times the number of vacancies to be so filled and out of those persons, the Appointing Authority shall appoint the persons suitable for the post.
27. The recruitment to the post of Senior Teacher and School Lecturer is governed by the Rules of 1971 and Rules of 1970 respectively, framed by the Governor in exercise of the power conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The recruitment to the posts of Senior Teachers and School Lecturers are required to be made by direct recruitment as well as by promotion in the proportion indicated in the Schedule attached to the relevant recruitment Rules. The recruitment Rules specifically provides for yearwise determination of actual number of vacancies occurring belonging to the promotion and direct recruitment quota as on 1st April every year. It is pertinent to note that in exercise of the power conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Rajasthan vide notification dated 23.9.08, promulgated Rajasthan Various Service (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2008, which specifically provides that direct recruitment to the post specified in the Schedule shall be held at least once a year unless the Government decides that the direct recruitment for any of these posts shall not be held in any particular year. The Rules of 1970 and Rules of 1971 finds mention at serial No. 20 and 52 of the Schedule. It is not the case of the respondents that any decision was taken by the Government not to make the recruitment for any of the posts en-cadred under the Rules of 1970 and Rules of 1971. Thus, indisputably, in terms of the relevant recruitment Rules, the State Government is under an obligation to determine the yearwise vacancies and proceed with the recruitment process to fill up the vacancies in the cadre in accordance with the relevant Rules.
28. It is pertinent to note that Rule 27 of the Rules of 1970 and Rule 28 of the Rules of 1971 provides for urgent temporary appointment against the vacancy in service which cannot be filled in immediately either by direct recruitment or by promotion under the Rules, by appointing in an official capacity the persons eligible for appointment to the post by promotion or by appointing temporarily thereto a person eligible for direct recruitment to the service under the provisions of the Rules. Suffice it to say that under the relevant recruitment Rules, no Page: 2396person lacking eligibility qualification could be appointed on the various posts in the cadre even on urgent temporary basis.
29. In the backdrop of position of law, as aforesaid, adverting to the Scheme, it is significant to note that the appointment of Vidhyarthi Mitra on contractual basis thereunder was sought to be made on the pretext that the regular recruitment process of Teachers in various cadres is likely to take a long time. One fails to understand that if regular recruitment in the cadre was likely to take a long time and there was non-availability of the duly selected candidates then what prevented the State Government from resorting to recruitment process under the Rules for urgent temporary appointment against the vacant posts of eligible candidates till the availability of duly selected candidates. Strangely enough under the Scheme framed the requirement of the eligibility of the candidates for the recruitment to the post of Teachers as provided for under the relevant recruitment Rules and by NCTE was also ignored inasmuch as the Scheme permitted even the engagement of persons who are not trained to discharge the duties of the Teachers in various Schools.
30. It is well settled that the regular posts in the cadre are required to be filled in by way of the regular recruitment process under the Rules. Of course, as noticed above, the urgent temporary appointment to the extent permissible under the Rules can be made till the availability of regularly selected candidates but then, the appointment on contractual basis is not envisaged under the relevant recruitment Rules. As a matter of fact, even the urgent temporary appointment in any public service to any post de hors the relevant Rules without permission of the competent authority is prohibited under Section 4 of the Act of 1999. Rather, the appointment in contravention of the provisions of the Act of 1999 is an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 1999.
31. In this view of the matter, the Vidhyarthi Mitra Scheme introduced by the State Government providing for engagement of Vidhyarthi Mitra on contractual basis against the vacant posts of Teachers in various cadres ignoring the eligibility qualification prescribed and the procedure prescribed for the recruitment is ex facie dehors the relevant recruitment Rules. That apart, the recruitment of Teachers lacking eligibility qualification runs contrary to the Regulations, 2001 framed by the NCTE, which have statutory force. As a matter of fact, the NCTE having prescribed the eligibility qualification, the State Government cannot proceed to appoint the persons on the posts of Teachers by giving the fictitious designation i.e Vidhyarthi Mitra to teach the children who are mandatorily required to be taught by the persons eligible for recruitment to the post as per the eligibility qualification laid down by the NCTE.
32. As noticed above, by way of Constitution (Eighty Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002, Article 21A was inserted in the Constitution which makes right to education, a fundamental right, and provides Page: 2397that State shall provide free and compulsory education all children of 6 to 14 years in such manner as the State by law provides. Indisputably, so as to implement the provisions of Article 21A of the Constitution, the Act of 2009 has been enacted by the Parliament which mandates that only the persons possessing minimum qualification as laid down by an academic authority authorised by the Central Government by notification shall be eligible for appointment on the posts of Teachers. As a matter of fact, it is not even disputed before this Court that the academic body, NCTE, under the authorization of the Government has already laid down the eligibility qualification and therefore, any person not possessing the requisite qualification as provided for by the NCTE cannot be appointed on the posts of Teachers in the various schools run by the State or otherwise.
33. It needs to be noticed that besides providing for the eligibility qualification for recruitment to the posts of Teachers, the Act of 2009, Section 6 thereof specifically mandates that for carrying out the provisions of the Act, the appropriate Government and the local authority shall establish within such area or limits of neighborhood as may be prescribed a school where it is not established, within a period of 3 years from the commencement of the Act. As per Section 7 of the Act of 2009, the Central Government and the State Government have concurrent responsibility for providing funds for carrying out the provisions of the Act. As per mandate of Section 8, the appropriate Government is under an obligation to provide infrastructure including school buildings, teaching staffs and learning material to ensure good quality elementary education conforming to the standards and norms specified in the Schedule. The emphasis under the Act is on ensuring that all children have access to quality education that enables them to the skills, knowledge, values and attitude necessary to become responsible and active citizens of India. To achieve the intended objects even the Pupil-Teacher Ratio in a school has been specified in the Schedule which is mandated to be maintained in each school by virtue of provisions of Section 25 of the Act. Suffice it to say that right to compulsory education enshrined in Article 21A of the Constitution of India presupposes quality education to the children and therefore, the State is under an obligation to make all efforts to ensure that the children of tender age may not suffer on account of teaching by unqualified teachers. In this view of the matter, the action of the State in continuing with the Vidhyarthi Mitra Scheme and permitting the teaching by the unqualified persons in the schools run by the State is avowedly illegal, arbitrary and falls foul of Article 21A of the Constitution of India.
34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again has emphasized for quality educations in the schools and deprecated the practice of employing unqualified untrained teachers to teach the children of tender age in the schools.
35. In N.M Nageshwaramma v. State of A.P, 1986 Supp SCC 166, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
“The teachers' training institutes are meant to teach children of impressionable age and we cannot let loose on the innocent and unwary children, teachers who have not received proper and adequate training. True they will be required to pass the examination but that may not be enough. Training for a certain minimum period in a properly organized and equipped training institute is probably essential before a teacher may be duly lanunched.”
36. In Andhra Kesari Educational Society v. Director of School Education, (1989) 1 SCC 392, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
“…. Though teaching is the last choice in the job market, the role of teacher is central to all processes of formal education. The teacher alone could bring out the skills and intellectual capabilities of students. He is the “engine” of the education system. He is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values. He needs to be endowed and energised with needed potential to deliver enlightened service expected of him. His quality should be such as would inspire and motivate into action the benefitter (sic benefactor). He must keep himself abreast of ever-changing conditions. He is not to perform in a wooden and unimaginative way. He must eliminate fissiparous tendencies and attitudes and infuse nobler and national ideas in younger minds. His involvement in national integration is more important, indeed indispensable. It is, therefore, needless to state that teachers should be subjected to rigorous training with right scrutiny of efficiency. It has greater relevance to the needs of the day. The ill-trained or sub-standard teachers would be detrimental to our educational system; if not a punishment on our children. The Government and the University must, therefore, take care to see that inadequacy in the training of teachers is not compounded by any extraneous consideration.”
37. In the matter of ‘State of Rajasthan v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale’, (1992) 4 SCC 435, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
“The teacher plays pivotal role in moulding the career, character fibres and aptitude for educational excellence in impressive young children. The formal educational needs proper equipment by the teachers to meet the challenges of the day to impart lessons with latest techniques to the students on secular, scientific and rational outlook. A well-equipped teacher could bring the needed skills and intellectual capabilities of the students in their pursuits. The teacher is adorned as gurudevobhava, next after parents, as he is a principal instrument to awakening the child to the cultural ethos, intellectual excellence and discipline. The teachers, therefore, must keep abreast of ever-changing techniques, the needs of the society and to cope with the psychological approach to the aptitudes of the children to perform that pivotal role. In short teachers need to be endowed and energised with needed Page: 2399potential to serve the needs of the society. The qualitative training in the training colleges or schools would inspire and motivate them into action to the benefit of the students. For equipping such trainee students in a school or a college all facilities and equipments are absolutely necessary and institutions bereft thereof have no place to exist nor entitled to recognition. In that behalf compliance with the statutory requirement is insisted upon. Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education.”
38. In the matter of “L. Muthukumar v. State of T.N”, (2000) 7 SCC 618, while relying upon earlier decisions noticed above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that before teachers are allowed to teach innocent children, they must receive appropriate and adequate training in a recognized training institutes satisfying the prescribed norms, otherwise the standard of education and careers of children will be jeopardized. The court observed that allowing ill-trained teachers coming out of de-recognized or un-recognized institutes or licensing them to teach children of an impressionable age, contrary to the norms prescribed will be detrimental to the interest of the nation itself in the sense that in the process of building a great nation, teachers and educational institutions also play a vital role.
39. In Uma Devi's case (supra) heavily relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
“2. Public employment in a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic, has to be as set down by the Constitution and the laws made thereunder. Our constitutional scheme envisages employment by the Government and its instrumentalities on the basis of a procedure established in that behalf. Equality of opportunity is the hallmark, and the Constitution has provided also for affirmative action to ensure that unequals are not treated as equals. Thus, any public employment has to be in terms of the constitutional scheme.
3. A sovereign Government, considering the economic situation in the country and the work to be got done, is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages. Going by a law newly enacted, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, the object is to give employment to at least one member of a family for hundred days in a year, on paying wages as fixed under that Act. But, a regular process of recruitment or appointment has to be resorted to, when regular vacancies in posts, at a particular point of time, are to be filled up and the filling up of those vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard manner or based on patronage or other considerations. Regular appointment must be the rule.”
(Emphasis added)
It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that a sovereign Government is not precluded from making temporarily appointments or engaging workers on daily wages basis, taking into consideration the economic situation in the country and work to be got done. But then, the Scheme as framed by the State Government is not an employment Scheme as such but rather it is a Scheme framed bypassing the regular recruitment process, which as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra) must be a rule. In any case, the sovereign Government has to function within the constitutional limit and cannot be permitted to frame the Scheme in violation of the laws and the constitutional scheme governing the public employment.”
10. After considering the entire law on the subject, learned Single Judge held as under:—
“40. In view of the discussion above, this Court is firmly of the opinion that the Scheme introduced by the State Government providing for the engagement of even unqualified/untrained persons as Vidhyarthi Mitra for their posting against the posts of Teacher Gr. III, Senior Teacher and School Lecturer dehors the relevant recruitment Rules and the eligibility criteria laid down by the NCTE exercising the power under the relevant statute, the provisions of the Act of 2009, and against the constitutional scheme of public employment, cannot but deemed to be illegal, arbitrary and falls foul of Article 14, 21 & 21A of the Constitution of India.”
11. Learned Single Judge was conscious of the fact that vacancies of the teachers engaged for elementary education and secondary education cannot be filled immediately and, thus, keeping in view the interest of the students, an arrangement was made in paragraph-42 which reads as follows:—
“42. In the result, the writ petition No. 8154/10 is allowed. The writ petitions preferred by the petitioners assailing their termination from service, claiming continuance/re-employment as Vidhyarthi Mitra and against the insistence of the Government for execution of the fresh contract, are dismissed. The Vidhyarthi Mitra Scheme introduced by the State Government for engagement of ‘Vidhyarthi Mitra’ on contractual basis on fixed honorarium against the posts of Teachers Gr. III, Senior Teachers and School Lecturers is declared illegal and unconstitutional. The respondents are restrained from engaging the Vidhyarthi Mitra under the Vidhyarthi Mitra Scheme against the posts of Teachers Gr. III, Senior Teachers and School Lecturers. The respondents are directed to proceed with the recruitment process to fill in all the vacant posts of Teachers and School Lecturers in various services/cadres forthwith and complete the process as early as possible, in any case, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that pending completion of the regular recruitment process, the State shall not be precluded from engaging the eligible persons on the various posts of Teachers on urgent temporary basis in accordance with the relevant Page: 2401recruitment Rules. The State shall also ensure that henceforth the determination of the vacancies of Teachers in various services/cadres is made every year as mandated by the relevant recruitment Rules and all efforts shall be made to fill up the vacancies preferably before the next academic session starts in the schools run by the State. The petitioners who have not been paid honorarium for the period they had worked with the respondents as Vidhyarthi Mitra, shall be paid the amount due within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that on account of the Vidhyarthi Mitra Scheme being declared illegal and unconstitutional, the petitioners and their likes who had worked with the respondents as Vidhyarthi Mitra, shall not be deprived of the benefits already accrued to them.
No order as to costs.”
12. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there are large number of vacancies running into thousands in the Schools for Primary Education and Secondary Education which cannot be filled up immediately. The Government has not taken any steps for direct recruitment on these vacancies; and that considering the interest of students, who would be suffering greatly on account of non-availability of teachers, the Court may consider to extend the time by which all the vacancies may be filled up and until then the persons who were disengaged as Vidhyarthi Mitras may be allowed to continue.
13. It is submitted that there can be no objections with the findings recorded and directions given by learned Single Judge, however, large number of Vidhyarthi Mitras are qualified to teach in the Schools for Primary Education and Secondary Education and thus, in the alternative, if the Court may not agree to allow the extension of time, at least, those Vidhyarthi Mitras, who are qualified, may be allowed to teach in the schools for the benefit of the students until direct recruitment is made. It is submitted that interest of lakhs of students is going to suffer by the delay caused by the State Government in direct recruitment.
14. We are informed by learned counsel appearing for the State that after declaration of Vidhyarthi Mitra Scheme to be unconstitutional, the State Government has abolished the scheme, and that after 30.04.2014, no person is working or has been engaged to serve as Vidhyarthi Mitra. The orders of learned Single Judge have been complied with and that the State Government has proceeded to make direct recruitment on the vacancies of the teachers in all categories.
15. In order to find out the current situation of the vacancies on the post of teachers in the Schools in the State of Rajasthan, we asked State Counsel to give us a comprehensive chart showing the number of vacancies on sanctioned posts and the availability of trained Vidhyarthi Mitras. We also asked State Counsel to give us the status of the requisitions made and the proceedings pending for recruitment of teacher and the status of the Teachers' Eligibility Test known in Rajasthan as REET. The chart produced by State Counsel is reproduced as under:—
INFORMATIONS WITH REGARD TO VIDYARTHI MITRA
Sr. No. Particulars Sanctioned Posts Vacant posts (1.10.2014) Vidyarthi Mitra Trained Untrained Retired Total 1 Secondary Education Lecturers -Sr. Teachers -Gr. III Teachers 33028 69884 12583 18310 20908 12583 2229 2283 1758 171 258 249 52 14 3 2452 2555 2010 2 Elementary Education 30298 11472 7999 7424 9 15432
That after 30.04.2013 no person is working as Vidyarthi Mitra
16. We are pained to observe that despite directions issued by this Court on 21.10.2013 which have been followed to the extent that Vidhyarthi Mitra has been discontinued and that after 30.04.2014 no person is working as Vidhyarthi Mitras, effective steps have not been taken to fill up the vacancies. From the chart produced before us, we find that there are 11,472 vacancies of Teachers for Elementary Education as against 30,298 sanctioned posts; 20,908 Page: 2403vacancies of Senior Teachers as against 69,884 sanctioned posts; and 18,310 vacancies of Lecturers as against 33,028 sanctioned posts. There are 7,999 trained teachers in elementary education, 1758 trained teachers Gr. III, 2283 trained Senior Teachers and 2229 trained Lecturers who were serving as Vidhyarthi Mitras. As against this, the requisitions are pending with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for filling up 4010 teachers for the post of Lecturers, 9447 for the post of Teacher Gr. II and 20,000 for Teacher Gr. III. For Teacher Gr. III, the requisition was sent about one year ago in August 2013.
17. We are also informed that for Teacher Gr. III, a recruitment was initiated in the year 2013 which is pending at various stages and that some of the petitions were decided by this Court against which Special Leave to Appeal pending in the Supreme Court in which directions have been issued to issue the third list. The appointments in pursuance to the recruitment are awaited.
18. We are unable to accede to the request of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to allow at least the trained Vidhyarthi Mitras to continue until all the posts are filled up. We do not find that considering the legal position as explained by learned Single Judge and his conclusions with which we entirely agree there is any scope to adjudicate any further on the issue of allowing Vidhyarthi Mitras to continue on the vacancies purportedly in the interest of the students. With the change in law focussing on appointment of only trained Teachers with Teachers Training qualifications and the TET qualifications and appointment of such teachers only by direct recruitment in accordance with the Rules of recruitment, it is no longer possible for allowing any untrained teacher or even a trained teacher who has not been regularly appointed to be allowed to continue on ad hoc basis or in contractual appointment.
19. We are of the view that quality of education to be imparted to the children in the school cannot be compromised at any costs. Even if, there are vacancies, the posts are not allowed to be filled up by teachers who are not trained and who are not appointed by way of direct recruitment in accordance with extant rules which have been amended in tune with the notification issued by NCIT which has been declared as Academic Authority by the Central Government. The concept of school education has undergone change after the amendment in the Constitution by inserting Article 21A and the enactment of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The Notification dated 23.08.2010 is binding on all the States and Educational Authorities. The Court is not empowered to compromise with the legislative changes for the sake of equity for the contractual appointees, and empathy for the children to allow the ad-hoc arrangements to continue.
20. We have been benefitted from the judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sangeet Lodha who has researched on the subject and has taken pains to go deep into all the aspects of the matter in rendering an exhaustive and complete judgment on the issue. We do not find any error in the judgment to interfere in the special appeal.
21. We also do not find any good ground to issue any directions to allow any ad hoc arrangement and declare that the State Government shall not Page: 2404compromise with the legal position as explained by learned Single Judge. There shall be no recruitment of Vidhyarthi Mitra nor any scheme will be made on ad hoc basis or of unqualified teacher or even qualified teacher de hors the service rules.
22. The Special Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Comments