Rajendra Kumar Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 4850 of 2017

1. Rajendra Kumar Sahu S/o Laxman Sahu, Aged About 29 Years Presently Working As Vidyamitan At Govt. H.S.S. Kerta, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

2. Prakash Kumar Bhatt S/o Sambhudas Bhatt, Aged About 39 Years Presently Working As Vidya Mitan At Govt. H.S.S. Baskepi, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

3. Gopichand Ghritlahre, S/o Narayan Prasad, Aged About 30 Years Presently Working As Vidyamitan At Govt. High School Souni, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

4. Yashpal Dubey S/o Sudarshan Dubey, Aged About 33 Years Presently Working As Vidyamitan At Govt. H.S.S. Navadih, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

5. Suchitra Kurre D/o Saheblal, Aged About 25 Years Presently Working As Vidyamitan At Govt. H.S.S. Kasturba Gandhi Awasiya Praisar Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

6. Ashish Kumar Yadav S/o Shivshankar, Aged About 29 Years Presently Posted As H.S.S. Basantpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

• Hiralal Rathore, S/o Mahadev Prasad, Presently Working As Govt. H.S. Vishramnagar, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat & Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Compex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Balrampur Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

3. Collector, Balrampur Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

4. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur, Vyapam Bhavan, North Block, Sector 19, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 ---- Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For petitioner :

Mr. A. K. Yadav, Advocate For State :

Mr. Satish Gupta, GA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order on Board 07/12/2017 Heard.

1.

This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the legality and validity of the advertisement (Annexure P-1) by which process for regular recruitment of panchayat teachers has been initiated. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners were engaged by placement agency to teach in schools of Government/Panchayat. He would submit that the placement agency has agreed to continue the petitioners in service up to 31st of March, 2018. He would further submit that vide memo dated 06-04-17, the State Government granted sanction to the Director, Public Instruction to extend the agreement with the placement agency and under Clause 15 of the agreement between Collector, Balrampur and the placement agency , the time period of agreement can be extended for a period of 3 months and it can also be extended for another year by mutual consent. 3.

Therefore, it is argued, the petitioners services are liable to continue and no termination would be permissible.

4.

Learned State counsel would submit that the petitioners are not Government employees. Only as temporary measure, till date regular recruitment of teachers for teaching are made, in order to ensure that teaching in Government schools is not disrupted interim arrangement was made. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim that they should be allowed to continue and regular recruitment should not take place. 5.

Pleadings and documents which have been filed by the petitioner and particularly the agreement of the placement agency with the Collector,

Balrampur would only reveal that the petitioners are not Government employees but they were engaged by private agency. The said placement agency entered into agreement with the Government authorities. The temporary arrangements was made till regular recruitment are completed, so that the teaching in schools is not disrupted. Petitioners engagement is purely contractual and not with the government but with the placement agency. No direction can be issued to extend the period of agreement of the engagement and restrain regular appointment through open advertisement.

6.

The petition is therefore misconceived and is dismissed. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Rohit