Shivaraj V. Patil, J. - (1.) Leave granted in special leave petitions.
(2.) The appellants in these appeals were appointed as teachers for various schools run by Zilla Parishads after being selected by Betterment Committees on payment of honorarium of Rs. 200-300 per month in the year 1988-89. They moved the State Government for regularization of their services in the year 1991. The State Government rejected their claims by the order dated 27-2-1992. Thereafter they filed writ petitions in the High Court for quashing the said Government order and also for direction to treat them as having been regularly appointed in the service of the respective Zilla Parishads and also to pay the arrears of salary and allowances from the date of their initial appointment till the date of payment. In the writ petitions, they pleaded that they were all working as teachers in Primary and High Schools on honorarium of Rs. 200-300 per month. According to them, Zilla Parishads of Dakshina Kannada, Kodagu and Shimoga passed resolutions with certain conditions as authorized by the Government by its Circular dated 15-10-1987 to open new Primary and High Schools in rural areas. One of the conditions was that Zilla Parishad will appoint one trained graduate teacher and the remaining teachers shall be appointed by the public. It was also asserted in the writ petitions that in view of the aforesaid conditions it is the School Management Committee presided by Mandal Pradhan that had appointed teachers to teach students in Zilla Parishad Primary and High Schools. It was their further case that Government granted post facto approval to all these teachers by its communication dated 9-7-1991. To put in nutshell, their case seems to be that they are all qualified to be as teachers; they were appointed at the instance of respective Zilla Parishads in accordance with Government Circulars and in accordance with resolutions passed by Zilla Parishads; having taken their services for nearly five to eight years, State Government and Zilla Parishads were bound to regularize their services from the date of their initial appointment and were required to pay arrears of salary on par with that of regularly recruited teachers in both - Primary and High Schools. The writ petitions were resisted on various grounds including that writ petitions were not maintainable. It was contended that writ petitioners were honorary teachers appointed by School Management Committee and some of them by Pradhan of Mandal Panchayat on honorarium of Rs. 200-300 per month; they were neither appointed by Zilla Parishads nor their appointments were approved by the State Government. It was further contended that the appointments of the teachers were not against the sanctioned posts and at no point of time State Government had approved their appointments. Ultimately, it was strongly contended that writ petitioners were all teachers working in the schools on honorary basis and honorarium was paid by School Management Committees; as such they were not entitled to any one of the reliefs sought in the writ petitions.
(3.) The learned single Judge, after considering the respective contentions and keeping in view the decisions of the High Court as well as of this Court, disposed of the writ petitions giving the following directions :- "i) That if the petitioners apply for appointment at the time of making regular appointment, their application will be considered subject to suitability, eligibility and reservation policy, giving due weightage for the period of service said to have been rendered by them and deducting the period of their honorary service from their age, for determining the question of age bar. ii) If for any reason, the schools in which petitioners are working have been approved by the State Govt. in their subsequent orders, the Selection Committee while selecting teachers for regular appointment will give whatever possible weightage to those teachers keeping in view their selfless service for nearly 5 to 8 years in those institutions. iii) Before parting with the case, it should be mentioned that this Court fully sympathises with the cruel fate of these unfortunate teachers but this Court is helpless in view of the earlier decisions of this Court and the Apex Court. iv) Respondents are restrained for terminating the services of the petitioner till regular appointments are made in the institution in which petitioners are working. v) In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs." ;