Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi. OA-1057/2012 MA-892/2012 MA-2594/2013 Reserved on : 26.02.2014. Pronounced on :07.03.2014. Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J) Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) 1. All India Kendriya Vidhyalaya Teachers,Association, through its General Secretary, 513, Sector-21C, Faridabad, Haryana. 2. Sh. A.S. Majumdar, S/o Sh. Haldar Majumdar, R/o B-81, 2nd Floor, Sohna Road, Gurgaon, Haryana. 3. Dr. S.B. Singh, S/o late Sh. R.N. Singh, R/o Flat No. 1/143, Jagat Puri, New Delhi-51. 4. Sh. Vijeyesh Pande, S/o late Sh. Rama Shanker Pande, R/o 160, Akansha Udyan II, Sector-1, Eldeco, Rai Bareily Road, Lucknow. 5. Sh. V.V. Sharma, S/o Sh. Ram Gopal Sharma, R/o 93-B, Harjinder Nagar, Lucknow Road, Kanpur. 6. Sh. Keshav Ram Thakur, S/o late Sh. Kamal Dass Thakur, R/o A-502, Himachali CGHS Limited, Plot No.8, Sector-3, Dwarka, Delhi. 7. Sh. Mukut Bihari Aggaral, S/o late Sh. Devi Prasad Aggarwal, R/o 42-B, Mitra Nagar, Opposite Super King School, Ram Nagar, Sodala, Jaipur. 8. Sh. Chetra Pal Singh, S/o Sh. Pitam Singh, R/o C-322, Tower 6, Sidco, Shivalik Apartments, Sector-1, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon. 9. Sh. Surender Babu, S/o Sh. Durga Prasad, R/o 69, Sector-5, Rajender Nagar, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP. . Applicants (through Sh. Sarvesh Bisaria, Advocate) Versus 1. The Union of India through The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sanghatan Through its Commissioner, 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-16. 3. Central Board of Secondary Education Through Secretary, Shiksha Kendra, 2 Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi. . Respondents (through Sh. Anil Srivastava and Sh. S. Rajappa, Advocate) O R D E R Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) The applicants are aggrieved by decision taken by the Board of Governors of Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan (KVS) in its 91st meeting held on 19.01.2012 in pursuance of which impugned Memorandum dated 17.02.2012 was issued. The applicants are particularly aggrieved by Clause-2, Serial No.2 of the aforesaid Memorandum, which reads as follows:- School functions for 6 hrs. 10 mts. Teacher will be retained after school hours for additional 1 hour 20 minutes which can be used for planning/preparation/checking/follow up work and for ensuring safe arrival and exist of students before and after school hours. 2. Initially this O.A. was filed by three applicants impleading UOI, Ministry of Human Resource Development and Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sanghatan as respondents. Subsequently, by filing different misc. applications the applicants have impleaded some more teachers as applicants and Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) as respondent No.3. The amended Memo of Parties is available on record. 3. The applicants have stated that respondent No.2 on 19.01.2012 in its meeting took a decision to increase the timings of the teachers from 6 hours 10 minutes in the school to 7 hours 30 minutes. In pursuance of this decision Officer Memorandum dated 17.02.2012 was issued, in Clause-2 of which the increased timings of the teachers were provided. When the applicant No.1 came to know about the aforesaid Memorandum he submitted a detailed representation to the respondents requesting them to implement all the recommendations of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE) and also provide all the facilities to the teachers hitherto not provided. Thereafter, applicant No.1 submitted a notice on 02.03.2012 of agitation informing the respondents that if this decision of increasing the teaching hours is not kept in abeyance applicant No.1 shall be compelled to agitate on 16.03.2012. The respondents, however, sent letters to the employees that if they participate in the agitation strict action will be taken against them. On 15.03.2012 the applicant No.1 again wrote to respondent No. 2 stating that all things mentioned in the schedule of RTE Act were required to be implemented and that there should be no pick and choose policy by the Government. Thereafter, a dharna was also resorted to on 16.03.2012. Since the date of implementation of the impugned memorandum was 01.04.2012 and since the respondents were not replying to the representations of the applicant, they filed this O.A. before us on 28.03.2012 seeking the following reliefs:- (i) Quash the Clause 2/Serial No.2 of the Office Memorandum dated 17.02.2012 by which the timings of Teachers have been increased; Direct the Respondents to implement the complete Schedule of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009; and Pass any other orders or directions as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. 4. The applicants have claimed relief on the following grounds:- (i) That the decision of the Board of Governors to increase the timings of the teachers is against the Bye-laws 32 of the CBSE. (ii) This decision is also contrary to the Delhi School Education Act and Rules framed thereunder. (iii) While admittedly RTE Act had been passed and the schedule had been prepared in the said enactment, the respondents are adopting of pick and choose policy and are not implementing the provisions in toto. (iv) The increase in working hours is also contrary to the provisions of the RTE Act. This decision was taken without consulting the JCM. Many benefits such as MACP, extension of age of superannuation, conversion of CPF to GPF have not been extended to the Teachers and Principals of KVS. No extra remuneration is being paid to the applicants for discharging this extra work. The new schedule will cause great inconvenience to the teachers as they will have neither time for breakfast nor for lunch. Thus this provision is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The teachers, in any case, taking the books and copies of the students to their home and devote extra time at home in the interest of welfare of the students. Change in the timings amounts to change in the service conditions of the teachers to their detriment for which they have not even been issued a show cause notice. This is thus against the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. 5. The respondent No.2 have filed their reply which is on record. Respondent No.3 (CBSE) who were impleaded at a later stage in the case have not filed any reply but were represented by their counsel during the hearing of the case. 5.1 In their reply the respondents have stated that the applicants cannot rely upon the Bye-laws of the CBSE as the statutory provisions contained in RTE Act will prevail over them. Further, they have stated that it is incorrect for the applicants to say that Delhi School Education Act is applicable to KVS. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court had dealt with this issue and has held that KVS itself is a body constituted as to set and implement standards in schools. They have been enforcing uniformity in standards across India. Subjecting them to local regulations would defeat the objective of the Sangathan. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decision of the Honble High Court of Delhi the contention of the applicants is not acceptable. Further, the respondents have stated that this decision is in conformity with the RTE Act which no where prescribes that working hours of teachers will be 6 hours and 10 minutes only. On the contrary it is provided under the said Act that 45 hours of work per week i.e. 7 hours and 30 minutes in a day of teaching by a teacher is a must. The respondents have gone on to state that there has been no violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. Moreover, the teachers are bound by the decision of the KVS authorities and are expected to complete the work for the day during the prescribed time. 6. We have heard both parties and have perused the material on record. 7. During arguments all parties agreed that the RTE Act provided for 45 hours of work in a week and that working for 7 hours and 30 minutes per day is in accordance with that provision. It was also agreed upon that the KVS would not fall under the Delhi School Education Act and this point was not pressed any further by the applicants counsel. Regarding the impugned O.M. being violative of CBSE Regulations the learned counsel for CBSE stated that CBSE Regulations only prescribed minimum working hours as 6 hours 10 minutes per day. If any school wants to have working hours more than what is prescribed under the Regulations, CBSE will have no objection to the same. Thus, the main grounds taken by the applicants for challenging the impugned Memorandum, namely, it is violative of RTE Act, violative of Delhi School Education Act and violative of CBSE Regulations have been dealt with in aforesaid manner and found to be not acceptable. 7.1 One other ground taken by the applicants was that provision of RTE Act should be implemented in toto and the respondents are not adopting the policy of pick and choose. In this regard the applicants counsel drew our attention to some of the other provisions of RTE Act which prescribed the teacher-student ratio. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the respondents have not taken effective steps to implement this provision and that teacher-student ratio was adverse in many schools. He argued that even in the impugned Memorandum this issue has been dealt with in Clause-I wherein the respondents have provided for appointment of additional teachers on contract basis whenever the teacher-student ratio exceeds 50. On the other hand in the RTE Act this ratio has been provided as 1:30. 7.2 It cannot be disputed that the aforesaid provision of RTE Act has not been fully implemented by the respondents. In our opinion, while all provisions of the Act need to be implemented, yet if the respondents choose to implement a certain provision first or give more emphasis on a particular provision they cannot be faulted for the same. Merely, because some provision of the Act is being implemented with vigor does not make such implementation unsustainable. If the applicants are aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not implementing certain provision of the Act, they have every right to challenge the inaction of the respondents through appropriate judicial proceedings. However, they cannot insist that either all the provisions of the Act be implemented in toto or none at all. In the instant case while the provision regarding student-teacher ratio may not have been implemented in right earnest it does not make implementation of the provision regarding working hours of the teachers in a week non-est in law. Thus, no direction regarding not to adopt policy of pick and choose can be given to the respondents. 7.3 The applicants have also taken a ground that JCM was not consulted before taking the aforesaid decision. However, we do not find merit in this as we have not been shown any provision under the Rules wherein it is prescribed that consultation with JCM is mandatory. In our opinion, this is only a consultative mechanism. The recommendations of JCM are also not binding on the respondents. As such, on this ground also the action of the respondents cannot be faulted.
Posted on: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 13:23:17 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015