V. Vimla And ORS v. Union Of India And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WP.CT/25/2024 V.Vimla and others Vs.
The Union of India and others Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the petitioners Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondents June 14, 2024 [SR] Item No.8 The petitioners are teachers working in private schools. The present writ petition has been filed challenging a Circular dated September 19, 2011, annexed at page 143 of the writ petition, to the extent that the same grants age relaxation benefits to employees in government schools while withholding such benefits to similarly placed teachers employed in private schools.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there is absolute parity between the teachers working in government and private schools insofar as in the Islands, both private and government schools are affiliated to the CBSE Board and follow the NCERT curriculum. That apart, the teachers in private schools have to fulfill the qualification criteria stringently. Learned counsel contends that the principles of Article 14 of the Constitution of India are violated in depriving the teachers in private schools from equal benefits of age relaxation as similarly placed teachers in government schools.
Learned counsel also places reliance on two different recruitment notifications where, it is argued, relaxation in general terms was given.
It is submitted that in a newspaper publication dated March 03, 2016 annexed at page 146 of the writ petition, age relaxation was accorded approval by the Lieutenant Governor, A & N Islands without restricting the same to the employees of government schools only.
Learned counsel for the respondent-authorities controverts such contentions and points out that the Circular dated September 19, 2011 applies to employees of government schools only and is not discriminatory.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to accede to the prayers of the petitioner for the following reasons:
Insofar as the impugned Circular is concerned, the same grants age relaxation to DRMs/contract employees and those appointed as Sarva Shiksha Contract Teachers, all of whom have already been working for prolonged periods with the Administration. Thus, the relaxation so granted is to persons who,since the entry point of their service, were government employees. That apart, in Clause 4 of the said Circular, it is specifically mentioned that in the case of DRMs/Ad hoc/Contractual workers, the total periods spent in each of the departments of the Administration shall be counted irrespective of the department where they are applying for regular appointment, provided the post is general in nature and it does not require any specific technical qualification.
As such, it is evident that by the impugned Circular, the Administration is giving certain benefits to its own employees, who have been in service of the Administration from the inception of their service.
Moreover, irreconcilable complications would arise if similar age relaxation is given to teachers of private schools in view of the provisions of Clause-4 as indicated above.
No parallels could be drawn between the previous service of employees of private schools and those of departments of the Administration insofar as the counting of the period spent in the department of the Administration is concerned, which has serious and direct repercussion on their service benefits and salaries. Hence, we find that the petitioner and other similarly placed teachers in private schools do not stand on equal footing with those working with the administration in the present context. Thus, the discrimination alleged is in fact a reasonable classification.
Insofar as the recruitment notification annexed at page 145 is concerned, which is also relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner, the same in no uncertain terms stipulates the maximum age for males and females. In parentheses immediately thereunder, it has been categorically mentioned that such age limit is relaxable for government servant up to the period as stated therein. Thus even in the said notification, the relaxation given is limited to government servants and not to private employees. The newspaper article annexed at page 146 of the writ petition, which is also relied on by the petitioners, refers back to the recruitment notification dated February 05, 2016, which has been discussed immediately hereinabove.
Thus, we do not find any scope of interference in the present writ petition.
Accordingly, WP.CT/25/2024 is dismissed on contest without any order as to costs.
[ Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.] [ Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.]