JUDGMENT
B. Lamare, J.
1. These writ petitions are taken up together as the common questions arises for regularisation of the petitioners who are Graduate teachers appointed on Contract/Ad-hoc/Substitute services in Government High/ Middle/Primary Schools.
2. In W. P.(C) 101(K)2001. there are 9 (nine) petitioners. W.P. (C) 102(K)2001,402 petitioner, W. P. (C) 148(K)2001, 5 (three) petitioners and W. P. (C) 149(K) 2001. 119 petitioners.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. In all the writ petitions, the petitioners were appointed as Graduate teachers on Contract/ Ad-hoc/Substitute basis from time to time by the State of Nagaland. The services of the petitioners ranges from three years to nine years or more according to their respective appointments. Their services were extended from time to time in the same capacity as Contract/ Ad-hoc/ Substitute basis, but their services have not been regularised till date The petitioners, therefore have approached this Court by these writ petitions for regularisation of their services.
4. All the petitioners were appointed without any selection test/ interview through departmental Selection Committee or the Nagaland Public Service Commission, in short (NPSC). From the records, it is seen that, only the appointment in the following orders were made through Selection:
(a) In appointment order No,ED/SE/D/60/90-91 dated 29.5.1992, 15 teachers were appointed.
(b) Order No. ED/SE/D/1(B)/92 dated 29.5.1992, 7 teachers appointed.
(c) Order No. ED/SE/91-92 (Pt.II) dated 2.6.1992 5 teachers were appointed.
5. The petitioners were continuing in their services and were waiting for regularisation of their services, but suddenly they came to know through News item published in the ‘Nagaland Page’ dated 19.5.2001 that the Government, by Cabinet decision dated 14,5.2001 has adopted fresh recruitment policy to regularise huge backlog of Ad-hoc Graduate teachers as a one time exercise. Coming to know the said policy decision of the Government, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions and prayed for regularisation of their services, and that until their services were regularised, no fresh appointment be made by the State Government.
6. The respondents have filed Affidavit-in-opposition, in their Affidavit -in-opposition, the respondents in para 9 of the Affidavit have explained that the Government policy was formulated after careful deliberation of the Cabinet. The main intention is not to eliminate the ad-hoc/contract serving teachers indiscriminately but to give them regular status for those who have the requisite qualification and professionally competent and those who are found suitable for the job. This has been formulated with a view to ensure more discipline and sense of duty amongst the teachers. This will hopefully improve the quality of Education in the State which is much needed.
7. The respondents, further contends that the present policy of the Government is a sincere attempt of the Government to solve this pending issue. The respondents further states that in so far as the appointment of the substitute teachers are concerned, their appointments are pur and simple substitute employee against temporary absence of the original employees. The respondents also states that the substitute employees have accepted the temporary appointment and were aware of those conditions governing the substitute employees.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners in the instant writ petitions are similarly situated with those petitioners whose cases were decided by this Court in W. P. (C) 105(K) 2000 by which Judgment dated 11.4.2001, this Court has directed for regularisation of the services of Graduate teachers who has completed 10 years of service. In the said Judgment, this Court also following the law laid down in the case of All Manipur Regular Posts vacancies Substitute Teachers Association v. State of Manipur reported in 1991 (Supl) Vol.11 SCC 645 has directed for regularisation of those teachers who has completed 5 years of service. The said Judgment was passed after taking into consideration the Cabinet decision held on 50.10.1996, by which the Government has decided to regularise the services of those teachers who completed 10 years of service.
9. After the said Cabinet decision and the decision of this Court in the said Judgment passed on 11.4.2001 in W. P. (C) 105(K) 2000, Mr. Amrit Edwards and Ors. v. State of Nagaland, the State Government has considered it expedient to review the entire aspects of the matter considering that a huge backlog of teachers are still remained in service without regularisation. The State respondents, therefore, considered it fit to examine the entire matter and made a policy decision regarding regularisation of the post of Ad-hoc/ Contract graduate teachers so as to enable the State Government to streamline the entire huge pending backlog cases of those teachers.
10. This decision made by the Government is a one time exercise so that all those backlog cases can be decided/regularise once for all. It is in this regard that the matter was placed before the Cabinet for a policy decision. Accordingly, in the Cabinet meeting held on 14.5.2001 it was decided as follows :
“Recruitment policy for Graduate Teachers.
The Cabinet approved the School Education Department’s proposal as follows:
(a) To regularise ad-hoc teachers who have put in 10 years and above of continuous service on the day of this approval in accordance with the High Court’s recent decision and Cabinet’s decision of 1996 in this regard.
(b) To conduct screening test through NPSC of those ad-hoc teachers who have put in 5 to 10 years of continuous service on the day of this Cabinet decision and regularise those found successful.
(c) To request NPSC to conduct open selection examination against those vacancies occupied for less than 5 years by ad-hoc teachers.
(d) To accept qualifying marks at 40% for ail candidates.
(e) To reserve 40% of the Graduate teacher posts for Maths and Science teachers.
Accordingly the Department shall frame suitable recruitment rules and Issue notification to this effect.
The Cabinet also decided that such regularisation is being considered as a one-time measure and no ad-hoc/contract appointment be made henceforth under any circumstances.
The Cabinet directed that the Department may take expeditious action against those found responsible for illegal appointment of about 300 teachers in the recent post and submit a note for information of the Cabinet.”
11. Following the above Cabinet decision, the Education Department of the State has framed the recruitment policy and published the same vide Notification No. EDS-A(2)/2000 (Pt) dated 5.6.2001. In the said Notification the Ad-hoc/ Contract teachers were categorised into three categories as follows:
Category -I : Ad-hoc/contract teachers continuously serving for 10 years or more.
Category -II : Ad-hoc/Contract teachers of 5 to 10 years of service as on 14.5.2001.
Category-III : Ad-hoc/Contract teachers serving less than 5 years as on 14.5.2001.
From the prayer made in all the writ petitions, it is that there is no dispute regarding the regularisation of those teachers who have put in more than 10 years of service as per the earlier Cabinet decision dated 30.10.1996.
The only grievance in these cases is in respect of those (go teachers who have rendered more than 5 years and less than 10 years of service. The main grievance of the petitioners is to restrain the respondents from advertising or conducting the test and interview for appointment of fresh graduate teachers till regularisation of their services who have already been appointed on ad-hoc/contract basis. In fact, the petitioners have not disputed in these writ petitions the said Cabinet decision or the Notification issued pursuant to the Cabinet decision nor has assailed the same in these writ petitions.
13. A bare perusal of the Cabinet decision shows that the State Government has taken up policy decision to regularise the case of the petitioners and other similarly situated teachers once and for all. The Cabinet decision also reveals that the Government has taken a very lenient decision to accomodate the petitioners who have rendered their services 5 to 10 years of continuous service as on the day of the Cabinet decision. The method of selection prescribed also is only to conduct screening test and the minimum marks has been prescribed at 40% for those teachers in that categories.
14. It is no doubt that the authority who has the power to appoint and regularise the sendee of the employees has also the power to exercise a minimum check like screening test through appropriate authority namely, the NPSC before the employees are regularised or absorbed on permanent basis. As observed above, the said Cabinet decision and Notification have not been assailed by the petitioners in these writ petitions. The Cabinet decision was also made after due consideration of the Judgment rendered by this Court in the said case of Amrit Edwards and Ors. v. State of Nagaland (supra), I am therefore of the view that the exercise made by the State respondents in the said Cabinet decision is just and proper. In other words, the said Cabinet decision does not violate the above Judgment of this Court inasmuch as in the said Judgment also, this Court has directed for regularisation of those teachers who have completed more than 5 years of service. The said Cabinet decision does not contravene the Judgment of this Court in any way. The procedure adopted for regularisation was made only for the purpose of screening test which the respondents are competent to do for the purpose of regularisation of the services of the petitioners.
15. In view of the discussions and observations made above, I am of the considered view that the instant writ petitions can be disposed of with the following directions :
(1) The State respondents shall regularise the services of the petitioners in line with the said Cabinet decision and Notification No. EDS-A(2)/2000 (Pt) dated 5th June 2001. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is served on respondents No. 1 and 2, the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Education Department and the Director of School Education, Government of Nagaland,
(2) Till regularisation of the services of the petitioners who have completed 5 years or more of service as per the said Cabinet decision, no fresh recruitment be made.
(3) The Substitute teachers have not been considered by the Government in the said Cabinet decision, and therefore, their services cannot be considered in terms of the said Cabinet decision. It is made clear that the substitute teachers are appointed against the temporary absence of the original employees and their services exists only during the period of substitution, and therefore, they have no right to claim for regularisation.
(4) Those teachers who were appointed through selection need not appear in the screening test.
16. With the above directions, the petitions are disposed of. No costs.