- (1.) THIS petition questions the parameters set out in the Government Order dated 31.1.2013 for engagement of Part-Time Instructors, particularly in the subject of Physical and Health Education, in Basic Schools run by the respondent State under the Basic Education Department on the ground that the criteria for providing benefit to Schools having a student strength of more than 100 is arbitrary and discriminatory.
(2.) THE second ground is a challenge to Clause 11(2) of the aforesaid G.O. that provides that the candidature would stand restricted to the residents of the same district which offends Article 16 and 14 of the Constitution as no restriction in public employment can be enforced on the basis of geographical limitations or place of residence. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner elaborating his submissions contends that the method to compute, allocate and identify the posts on the basis of more than 100 students in a School is an erroneous approach. Schools having less than 100 students would therefore stand discriminated and deprived of teachers in special subjects like Physical and Health Education which is compulsory in Basic Schools. The said argument may not wade through as the provision made is in accordance with the student teacher ratio. If the number of students is less than 100 then there would no justification for having more teachers than required. For this one can fall upon the Government Order dated 5.4.2004 reference whereof has been made by the petitioner himself in Paras 26 and 27 of the petition and appended as Annexure 14. A perusal thereof provides a remedy which has been described as unjustifiable by the petitioner for no valid reason. The submission therefore has to be rejected. Sri Khare has laid more stress on the second argument of discrimination on the ground of residence. He has heavily relied on two apex court judgments reported in (2002) 6 SCC Pg. 393 Harshendra Choubisa and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others; and (2002) 6 SCC Pg. 562 Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and others coupled with the full bench decision in the case of J.K. Soni Vs. State reported in 2010 (7) ADJ Pg. 407 to buttress his stand. He contends that restricting the candidature only to a district is denial of opportunity to apply in other districts. This according to him violates Article 16 as well. There is no rationality behind this restriction so as to achieve any objective of basic education or even employment. To give preference compulsorily is prohibitory in nature for no valid reason. He submits there was no such restriction under any scheme of part time engagement, and even if it was, the same does not appear to have been challenged. This sort of preference has the effect of eliminating candidates who are more meritorious but stand excluded from consideration altogether. He has invited the attention of the court to the other schemes including the engagement in Kasturba Gandhi Awasiya Balika Vidyalaya. The issue of restricting applications in the matter of Apprentice Teachers has also been cited as an example to contend that this court interfered with the same.
(3.) REFUTING the submissions, Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned Standing Counsel contends that the Government Order in Clause 1(6) spells out the reason as follows:-;