PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has disposed of a plea filed by the Goa Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan teachers, who have been working on contractual basis, to regularise their appointments.
The High Court, however, ruled that if any of the teachers apply for the newly advertised regular posts, the government will grant them age relaxation in order to ensure that they are eligible for the posts.
The petitioners nearly 80 of them who approached the High Court were appointed as primary teachers on, contractual basis on various dates under the Goa Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (GSSA) and sought regularisation of their services as “Government Primary Teachers” along with all consequential benefits like regular pay scale, retiral benefits, etc.
The State Government, however, opposed relief arguing that the petitioners were engaged on purely a contractual basis pursuant to advertisement dated 21.06.2006 by the GSSA and that the advertisement and the appointment letter had made it clear that the appointment was purely contractual against a consolidated salary.
The High Court, however pointed to a decision by the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs Umadevi and others, which held that when a person enters temporary employment or gets engaged as a contractual or casual worker and such engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by proper rules or procedure, such a person can be said to be aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature.
“Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and where it is so required by law after consultation with the Public Service Commission,” the High Court said quoting the Supreme Court judgement..
“We cannot be oblivious to the fact that the advertisement spoke about contractual engagement and not regular appointments. There is no material whatsoever on record to suggest that the contractual engagement was against any sanctioned pos,” the High Court bench of Justices MS Sonak and Bharat Deshpande ruled.
