ASHOK KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts and the question of law involved in these four writ petitions being almost identical, the petitions have been taken up for decision analogously and are being disposed of by this singular judgment.

(2.) In the Writ Petition No. 27 of 1994 the number of petitioners are 76. In Writ Petition No. 30 of 1994 the number is only I and in Writ Petition Nos. 4 of 1995 and 17 of 1995 the number of petitioners.are 20. Respondents in all the four petitions are 3 in number and they are the State of Sikkim, Director of Education Department of the Government of Sikkim and the Secretary of the Establishment Department of the Government. The petitioners in all the concerned writ petitions were teachers, graduates or post-graduates, having worked on contract or ad hoc basis for different periods ranging from one year or so. Most of them were appointed on contract basis and were given extension from time to time. In all the cases initial appointments were made by selection on the basis of interview conducted by the Selection Committee duly appointed by the Education Department of the Government. Initial appointments were always for a specified period but mostly against permanent vacancies. Extensions were given from time to time and in most of the cases the extended period of appointment were on ad hoc basis.

(3.) On 7th Nov., 1990 the Deputy Director of Education wrote a letter to the Government schools asking them to instruct all the teachers working under them on contract or ad hoc basis and whose terms of contract or the tenure of ad hoc appointment was due to expire within Feb., 1992, for appearing in a selection test for renewal or extension of their tenure of service. It was made clear therein that appearance before the Selection Committee would not mean automatic extension of their service. It was also made clear that those who had appeared in an interview earlier was also to appear in the proposed selection test. Though it was contemplated that written test coupled with interview would be the procedure of selection test but the concept of written test was withdrawn. In 1987, identical step was taken but therein exemption from appearance before Interview Board was granted to the teachers who had earlier appeared in an interview. The petitioners before us apprehended that the step adopted by the Government was a fishy strategy to get over the claims of the petitioners for regularisation of their service as they had been opposing the manner in which they, with a paltry consolidated amount, had been made to perform the duties as the teachers in the regular scale were doing.