@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Subhash Samvatsar, J.
This order shall govern disposal of the present petition as well as other connection writ petitions, i.e., W.P. No. 7760/2003, Brij Raj Singh Chouhan v. State of M.P. and Ors., W.P. No. 1803/2000, Smt. Nirupama Jain v. State of M.P. and Ors., W.P. No. 86/2003, Narendra Singh Chouhan v. State of M.P. and Ors., W.P. No. 155/2003, Pradeep Kumar Mudgal v. State of M.P. and Ors., W.P. No. 266 of 2003, Ramraj Singh Tomar v. State of M.P. and Ors., W.P. No. 903/2003, Ramkumar Gaud v. State of M.P. and Ors., W.P. No. 819/2003 Mahesh Singh Kushwaha v. State of M.P. and Ors., W.P. No. 912/2003, Vikram Singh Tomar v. State of M.P. and Ors., W.P. No. 4534/2003, Suresh Chandra Mishra v. State of M.P. and Ors., W.P. No. 4727/2003, Kuldeep Kumar and Anr. v. State of M.P. and Ors., W.P. No. 7106/2003, Uday Vir Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors., W.P. No. 7115/2003, Shiv Nath Singh Sikarwar v. State of M.P. and Ors., W.P. No. 7304/2003, Manmohan Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors., W.P. No. 7310/2003, Yadvendra Singh Choudhary v. State of M.P. and Ors., W.P. No. 7342/2003, Arvind Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors., W.P. No. 7548/2003, Archana Tiwari v. State of M.P. and Ors., W.P. No. 8095/2003 Smt. Sarita Jadon v. State of M.P. and Ors., W.P. No. 8096/2003, Udai Bhan Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors. and W.P. No. 8100/2003, Virendra Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors...
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners in all these twenty writ petitions were employees of a school namely Shri Hazareshwar Higher Secondary School, Sheopur, which is a private school. This school is being run by a society namely Shri Hazareshwar Zila Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Sheopur. The school was recognised by the State Government for imparting education from Classes I to XII.
According to the petitioners in the year 1995 there were 7248 students studying in the school in various classes. Annexure P-5 is the report of the Principal of Government Higher Secondary School, Jagga Ka Pura, Sheopur in that regard. A proposal was sent for taking over of the said school by the Government. In that regard correspondence went on for a number of years and ultimately the school was taken over by the State Government on 29-6-1995 by order Annexure P-6. At the time of taking over of the school there were as many as 191 teachers in the school. Initially the Government created 131 posts of teachers vide Annexure P-7 and absorbed those 131 teachers in the Government service. However, remaining 60 employees were not absorbed in the Government service, hence present petitions have been filed.
The contention raised by the Counsel for the petitioners is that as per the agreement and the policy, Annexure P-5, it was agreed that a Screening Committee will be constituted for absorbing the staff of the said school but in spite of the said decision the employees were arbitrarily absorbed. Learned Counsel for the petitioners invited attention of this Court to Annexure P-11 which is an agreement entered into at the time of taking over of the school by the State Government. Copy of the policy for taking over the management is filed as Annexure R-5.
The first contention raised by the Counsel for the petitioners is that the employees were absorbed without considering their seniority, merits and length of service. Counsel for the petitioners urged that in Annexure P-5 it was decided to constitute a committee consisting of Joint Director of the Division ; Principal of a Government School situated at the head quarter of the Education Division and Headmaster/Principal of the school to be taken over. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioners is that the Screening Committee submitted its report after screening which is on record as Annexure R-2. Learned Counsel submits that though as per the policy a three members committee was to be constituted. The proceedings of the Screening Committee shows that as many as six persons have participated in the screening process and as these three out siders have influenced the committee process the entire proceedings are vitiated.
In reply to the arguments of the petitioners learned Counsel for the State submitted that the Screening Committee was properly constituted. According to him sixty employees which were shown on the register of the school were due to fake appointments by the school authorities. According to the State Government Annexure R-l shows that in the year 1995-96 there were as many as 5137 students in the school. This figure has jumped to 7248 only because the institution wanted to favour some persons and wanted to give them appointments in the school before taking over of the school so that they may be absorbed in to Government service. Learned Counsel for the respondents also submitted that in two years the number of classes were increased by more than thirty and all this exercise was done to help the petitioners who were not eligible for absorption.
Counsel for the respondents also pointed out that few days before absorption a number of employees were given appointments/promotions and these persons are petitioners in Writ Petitions No. 1803/00, 86/03, 266/03, 819/03, 839/03, 7115/03, 7304/03, 8095/03, 8096/03. All these petitioners were appointed/promoted by the school in March, 1995 when process for taking over of the school was at its fag end. Counsel for the respondents also pointed out that petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7760/03 was appointed as Assistant Principal when there was no such post in the institution. Thus, according to the Counsel for respondents these persons were either appointed or promoted with a view to extend the benefit of absorption. Increase of thirty three classes in one year also indicates the same thing. Counsel for the respondents also urged that it is true that some of the senior employees were excluded from being absorbed while the employees who were joined the service subsequently were absorbed but all this was happened due to non-availability of teachers in different subjects. Thus, according to him there is no discrimination or illegality in absorption.
Learned Counsel for the respondents also submitted that in spite of three members is provided in the policy for the Screening Committee there were six persons have participated in the screening process but that itself has not caused any prejudice to any one. Counsel for the respondents has also urged that there is nothing on record to show that these persons had influenced the mind of the Screening Committee.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court to the judgment of Apex Court in the case of
In the present case a three member committee was constituted by the Government under the Policy, Annexure R-5, when the proceedings of the said committee show that six persons have signed the proceedings and as such participated in the Screening process. It is true that there is nothing on record to show to prove the extent of influence by three out siders but none the less there are chances that these persons may have influenced the mind of the screening committee. Though, it can not be found that to what extent they have influenced the mind of screening committee still the influence by these persons can not be totally ruled out.
The Bombay High Court in case of (Dr.) Gorakh Nath Misra v. Goa University (1989) 2 SLR 67, has held that if an unauthorized persons has participated in the selection committee then the entire selection is vitiated. In that case the Registrar of the University had participated in the selection committee, though he was not the member of the selection committee and the High Court quashed the proceedings holding that it is amply proved that the person not authorised to act as a member of the selection committee had acted and as such participated in decision making process and, therefore, the selection made by the committee is vitiated in law. It is settled principle of law that the justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done. In such circumstances, it can be said that the screening process was influenced by extraneous consideration and that itself vitiate the entire screening process. In such circumstances this Court need not go into other questions raised by the parties and, therefore, it is held that the entire screening process is vitiated.
The Apex Court in the case of
With the above observations and directions these petitions stand disposed of with no orders as to costs.
