(l) Mter completIOn of every three years service, the 'contract period of "Samvida Shala Shikshak" maybe extended for a further period of three years by the Panchayat. On'recom-.
mendation of ~he Committee specified in Schedule-III. The Comrriittee shall recommend the extension on the basis of work,' conduct; performance and the' result ofannual examination of the students of the classes, which he/she has been teaching. On completion of every three year period of contract employment. "Samvida Shala Shikshak" shall be entitled to 15% increa~e in his/her previous contract remuneration: .
. Provided that after every completion of nine years of the contract period of "Samvida Shala Shikshak", it may be .extended for further three . years by the Panchayat on the basis of the recommendation of the Committee specified inSchedule-UI. The Committee shall recommend the extension o'n the basis ofmedical examination, opinion of Parent Teacher Association of the concerned schod and assessment of performance, work and result of last nine years of annual examinations of the students of classes in which he/she has been teaching.
(2) Mter the expiry of every contract period, in case of extension in contract period a new contract wi[ have to be exeouted.
(3) The extension in the contract period of "Samvida Shala Shikshak" .under sLib-rule (1) may be made up to 62 years of age of "Samvida Shala Shikshak" . . . .
COMMENTARY - - ~-:_-~: ..~:~;:.;.~~-i..::.'.,".:.':-~~'-A"~'-~ A •• -:_ •• __ -=.~":".-..~. __ ._-._ '.__ ~ ~_'_'_'_' .. __ .(-::. . .. ,._ .•..._ [1] Rules 9, 10 & 11.-Recruitment process for appointment of Shiksha Karmi.-Petitioner applied for being appointed as Shiksha Karmi. Even being more meritorious not selected. Action challenged.
Mass irregUlarities found in the entire selection process. Held, It is well settled principle of law that when, the entire selection is being cancelled due to writ large irregularities hearing to individually candidates is not ~ necessary. Respondents directed to conduct fresh recruitment process in.
pursuance to the aforesaid order shall be limited to on such candidates ' who had. applied _~!!"p~rti~p-at~ ipJhe_previo,us.s.election process and. . _ . _ .. - - -_.-the-same-be completed within a period of 3 months. Kanchan Upadhyay (Ku.) v. State of M.P. , ILR 2009 M.P. 155.
[2] Rule. 9 'of the rules is pari materia and indentically worded for urban as well as Panchayat area ..•\1anoj Kumar Pandya v. State ofM.P. , 2008 (2) MRLJ 302 = 2008(3) JLJ 203 = 2008(3) MPHT 343 ..
[3] Explanation 5 to Rule 9(b) is not arbitrary & no violation of Art.l.(-Intelligible classification has been made and teaching experienceniarks are being awarded rightly for the kind of experience which is possessed for the p~rticular post of 40ntract teacher grade I,ll and III to teach the very class ofwhich they are having experience, thus it cannot be said that there is arbitrainess violating Art. 14 of the Constitution of.Jndia in the Explanation 5 to Rule 9(b) of the aforesaid Rules. Manoj Kumar Pandya v. State of M.P., 2008 (2) MPLJ 302 = .
2008(3) JLJ 203-= 2008(3) MPHT343. :
[4] Rule 9(c)-Special skill may' get weightage to teach at primary level- Not awarding of special marks for higher educa- Rules 10, 12, 12(a) & 12(h).-Age relaxation.-Petitioner working as.
Samvida Shala Shikshak Class-II in the Government School. He applied .for the post of Civil Judge claiming relaxation of 3 years on the ground that he is a Government Servant. ~~ld,. Appointing authority of the. ._ petitioner isJ anpad Panchayat mId thus he is not a Government Servant .
and cannot be granted age relaxatiol). Arun Singh Bhadouriya v. State of M.P., 2009(2) MPHT 277 = 2009(2) MPWN 112 = ILR 2009 M.P.
1939 (DB): . .
(PR)480 PAN. SAM. SHALA SHIKSHAK (EMPLOY. ...J RULES, 2005 R. 10 HOD isjustified.-For appointment of teachers for primary classes, Rule 9(c) excludes grant of weight age marks to the candidates having B.Ed.
qualification is in tune with the note 1 of the Notification issued by National Council of teacher Education. Special skill is possessed by D.Ed/B.T.C./D.S.E. candidates to impart education at primary level children obtaining instructions at that level. Though differentiation is made under the rules in eligibility for awarding marks but that is based on intelligible classification, which is permissible within the ambit of Art. 14 of the Constitution. 20 Marks which have been reserved as per Rule 9(c) have been rightly reserved for special category of candidates having special skill to impart primary education, the incumbents having B.Ed. degree have not been totally excluded from staking their claim but they are not to be awarded marks of special educational qualification as they are not having expertise qualification to teach at primary level.
Though they may be having qualification to teach at higher level but B.Ed. is not the higher qualification to teach at primary level but special skill for the purpose of teaching at primary level as held by the Apex Court. Manoj Kumar Pandya v. State of M.P., 2008 (2) MPLJ 302 = 2008(3) JLJ 203 = 2008(3) MPHT 343.