Inclusive Education Resource ... vs Shri Budithi Rajasekhar Ias,
2022 Latest Caselaw 9509 AP

                            1




        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

               CONTEMPT CASE No.718 of 2020

ORDER:

This Contempt Case is filed stating that the

respondents herein have willfully, wantonly violated the order

of this Court dated 24.03.2020 passed in W.P.No.6705 of

2019.

2) This Court has heard learned senior counsel Sri K.G.

Krishna Murthy appearing for the petitioner Association and

Sri K.V.Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for School

Education appearing for the respondents.

3) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner

points out that the respondents have deliberately violated the

orders of this court. According to him, the writ petitioner is

an association of Inclusive Education Resources Teachers (for

short "IERTAs"). They have sought for a writ of mandamus,

which was allowed by this Court and a direction was given to

the government to frame a scheme to regularize the resources

teacher, who have put in more than 10 years of service. It is

his contention that all the members of the petitioner's

association have put in more than 10 years of service and are

qualified to be appointed under the orders of this Court. He

points out that this Court has considered the amalgamation

of the existing schemes and the Union of India itself had

decided that the existing human resources appointed under

the earlier schemes i.e., Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (SSA) and

Rashtriya Madyamika Siksha Abhiyan (RMSA) were to be

rationalised. He relies upon Clause 4.3.2 - Resource of the

SSA, which is an integrated scheme. Therefore, he submits

that the members of the petitioner's association should have

been rationalized first and then regularized. Coming to the

issue of the 10 years and more than 10 years service learned

senior counsel points out that all the petitioners have put in

more than 10 years of service and the artificial breaks that

are given are utilized for the purpose of negativing the benefits

to the petitioner. He points out that this court itself has

noticed that service of the members are virtually perennial

and that reading of the order would show that the members of

the petitioner's association are entitled to regularization.

Relying upon the case law it is submitted that the artificial

breaks in service which the respondents are relying upon

have been negatively commented upon by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in more than on judgment. Learned

senior counsel relies upon the following four judgments:

1) Ahalya A. Samtane v State of Maharashtra and others1;

2) Union of India and Others v Vartak Labour Union2;

3) C. Dhanamjaya v Sri Venkateswara University3; and

4) Kodali Raju and Others v The APSRTC & Others4

4) In reply to this, learned counsel for the respondents

argues that none of the officers concerned have committed

any error whatsoever. It is submitted that after the order was

passed a Government Memo was issued to frame a scheme.

The Commissioner of School Education has sought the

information and it was found that in total IERTs working only

143 candidates had requisite qualifications. A committee was

also appointed to frame the scheme and the Committee came

to the conclusion that as none of the IERTs have put in 10

years of continuous service framing a scheme to regularize

the resource teachers is not feasible. Therefore, it is

submitted that basing on the report of the committee the

(2018) 9 SCC 92

(2011) 4 SCC 200

(2014) 2 ALT 344

2010 SCCOnline AP 724

competent authority held that it is not possible to implement

the orders of the Court. Hence, it is submitted that the

respondents have not committed any breach. An affidavit of a

responsible official was also directed to be filed along with the

dates of appointments etc., of the various teachers, who are

working throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh and as

directed the same was filed on 11.08.2022. A report of the

Committee was also filed wherein the said Committee has

come to the conclusion that none of the IERTS are having 10

years of continuous service.

5) In rejoinder the details of the service of the various

IERTs in various districts of AP are filed and highlighted and

are relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the

petitioner. He points out that additional documents which

are filed also support the case of the petitioners. He relies

upon the certificate given to Mr.Polu Rama Chandrareddy,

who was working as IERTS in Badvel, YSR District Kadapa,

the certificate is dated __ October, 2019 and it shows that he

was working from 04.11.2003 to 31.03.2004; 01.07.2004 to

31.03.2005 and 09.08.2005 to till date that is till 2019.

Similarly he relies upon the certificate issued to Mr.KNL

Satyanarayana, who has been working from 22.02.2002 to

31.03.2003; 04.11.2003 to 31.03.2004; 30.06.2004 to

31.03.2005; 09.08.2005 to 31.03.2006; 01.07.2006 to

23.04.2013; 01.06.2013 to 23.04.2015 and 04.06.2015 to till

date that is till 2019. He points out that a certificate issued

to Smt. Murala Mary Chandra Kala, who was working as IERT

in Undi Mandal in West Godavari District shows that she

worked from 12.01.2004 to 22.10.2019. He points out that in

these service certificates at the bottom it is clearly mentioned

as follows:

"Individual services are reengaged in every year 1 to 4 days of working days breaking of the service from the beginning between every reengage."

6) In the certificate issued to Mrs. Murala Mary Chandra

Kala it is clearly mentioned as follows:

"These IERTs are being terminated on closure of schools for summer vacation at the end of April every year and being re-engaged after gap of 1 or 2 days."

7) Similar certificates issued to others are also relied upon.

Relying on the case law learned senior counsel submits that

these artificial gaps are strongly commented upon as an

unfair labour practice by the higher courts of the land.

Therefore, learned counsel submits that artificial gaps cannot

be used to deny the benefit to the writ petitioners.

8) This Court after hearing all the learned counsel notices

that if the order passed by this Court is examined in totality

the following are visible:

a) It was held that the members of the petitioner's

association are validly recruited.

b) The job did not appear to have real breaks and the

teaching is virtually perennial since the object behind the

scheme is to provide special educational facilities to

children who are suffering congenital or other defects.

c) The scheme also provides for rationalization of the existing

resources in the SSA and RMSA schemes.

9) Therefore, this Court came to the conclusion that the

association members have put in perennial service and the

breaks are not real. They are all validly recruited.

10) The additional papers filed also clearly shows that the

services of the teachers are being terminated with one or two

days service and they are being re-recruited. The certificate

given to Mr.Mudragada Venu Satya Prasad, who was working

in Rangampeta, East Godavari District shows that from 2005

to 2019 that is for 13 years 9 months 6 days, he was working

as IERT. To the same effect is the certificate given to

Yallabandi Peddiraju working in Bhimavaram, West Godavari

District, who is working from 11.09.2006 to 19.10.2019. In

the case of Mr. Kappala Ravindra Sagar, he was working in

Undrajavaram, West Godavari from 08.01.2004 to

19.10.2019. Mr. P. Sreenivasa Rao, is working in

Gannavaram, Krishna District from 02.02.2004 till date. Mrs.

Kaveti Venkata Sudha, is working in Vijayawada from

02.02.2004 till date.

11) The data filed for Srikakulam show (which is randomly

picked up) the case of Mr. Sreedhar Pujari (Sl.No.17) and

Mr.Ramesh Bammdi (Sl.No.18). the document shows that

from 06.10.2009 they have been working till April, 2022. The

maximum breaks in service all ranging from: one day, three

days to two months 18 days etc. The case of Mrs.Mangam

Esther Rani of Gokavaram, East Godavari District is also

examined. It shows that in the period 2007-08 there is a gap

of 7 days, 2008-09 a gap of 7 days, 2009-10 the gap is 10

days, in 2010-11 the gap is 5 months and 12 days and in

2011-12 a gap is 3 days. In 2012-13 the gaop is 3 days; in

2013 - 14 the gap is 7 days; 2014-15 the gap is 2 days; 2015-

16 the gap is 2 days and 2016-17 the gap is 2 days. In the

period 01.05.2017 onwards till 28.04.2022 there are five

breaks with one day / 2 days while the IERT teacher was

working. These are samples taken randomly. Therefore, it is

visible ex facie from the record that the IERT teachers have

been putting in continuous service. Similarly in

Ananntapuram district the cases of Mr. M.Adi Reddy and Mr.

Sreedhar Rao were randomly seen. From 16.10.2006 to April,

2012 they have been working. In 2007-08 the breaks ranging

from 2 months 16 days to 11 days. In 2011 to 2017 the

artificial breaks ranged from 7 days to 51 days. In 2017-18

the breaks range from 1 day to 7 days.

12) It is thus clear that in all these cases artificial breaks in

service are being used to deny the employment opportunity to

the IERTS. The record filed is visible and is clear. The case

law on the subject which has been relied upon is also clear.

The artificial breaks of service have been severely frowned

upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In fact the

judgment of Ahalya A. Samtaney case (1 supra) deals with

artificial breaks in the service of teachers. The other cases

cited upon also make it very clear that artificial breaks in

services are not at all appreciated.

13) The question is: Will this amount to a willful

disobedience of this Court's order?

14) This Court notices that the order passed by this Court

has not yet been varied, modified or set-aside. Initially, the

State argued that some of the members of the petitioner's

association were not validly employed, but the supplementary

affidavit clarified that they were contract employees. In any

view of the matter, this Court came to a conclusion that the

members of the petitioner's association are validly recruited.

It is also noticed that in 2011-2012 an examination was taken

by the teachers and they were appointed on a contractual

basis. This Court clearly clarified that the job does not

appeared to have any real breaks and the teaching is virtually

perennial. Therefore, this Court directed the respondents to

formalize a scheme.

15) The scheme was not formalized only on the ground that

the teachers have not put in 10 years of service and that

against the Kerala Judgment an appeal is preerred. The data

filed by the respondent-State itself shows that the teachers

have put in more than 10 years of service. The breaks in

services are ranging from 1 day to a few months. The fact

however, remains that even upto the date of hearing in 2022

the services of the teachers are being utilised.

16) In conclusion, this Court holds that the interpretation

taken by the officers of the State and by the respondents to

support the Committee report etc., is not correct and is

contrary to the law. Their conduct is contemptuous. In that

view of the matter, this Court has to hold that there is willful

disobedience. The case law relied upon by the respondents to

the effect that it is not willful disobedience is not acceptable.

The respondents cannot ignore the finding of this Court that

the services of the members of the petitioner's association

were used on perennial basis and their initial recruitment was

valid. The data shows utilization even in the year 2022.

17) Therefore, this Court has to hold the respondents are

guilty of willful disobedience of this Court's order. One last

opportunity is given to the respondents to appear and purge

their contempt.

18) Issue Form-I to the respondents directing them to

appear before this Court on 29.12.2022.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J Date:09.12.2022

Ssv

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

CONTEMPT CASE No.718 of 2020

DATE:09.12.2022

ssv