Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 73 (ORI)

Sanghamitra Patra v. State of Orissa

2013-03-15

SANJU PANDA

body2013
JUDGMENT SANJU PANDA, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the action of the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Balasore-opposite party No.3 in rejecting her application for engagement as Gana Sikhyak in contravention of the guidelines issued under EGS/ SSA. 2. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was selected by the Village Education Committee having requisite qualification (+2 Arts) for engagement as an Education Volunteer in respect of Khasagadia E.G.S. Centre under Attampur Grama Panchayat, Soro Block in the district of Balasore on 16.10.2007. She joined as Education Volunteer on 17.10.2007. From the date of her joining, she is continuing and discharging her duties to the satisfaction of the authorities. However, after some days, the State Government has decided to up-grade the E.G.S. Centres to regular Schools and the Education Volunteers engaged in such E.G.S. Centres were disengaged and are facing the consequences of disengagement in the process. Taking into consideration the problem of the Education Volunteers under the Education Guarantee Scheme under Sarva Sikhya Abhijan the Government decided to rehabilitate those Education Volunteers as Gana Sikhyak and passed a resolution on 16.2.2008. As per the said resolution, the disengaged Education Volunteers, who are untrained having minimum qualification of Matric 10th (H.S.C.E.)/+2 will be engaged as Gana Sikhyak with a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 1750/- per month. Since the petitioner is coming within the purview of the said resolution the has prayed for engagement as Gana Sikhayak under rehabilitation. As the authority did not take into consideration her case, the petitioner filed W.P.(C).No.2703 of 2011 before this Court, which was disposed of on 10th February, 2011 with a direction to the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Balasore opposite party No.3 to consider and dispute of her representation within a period of three months. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though similarly placed persons have already been engaged as Gana Sikhyak, the case of the petitioner was not considered and the opposite party No.3 passed the impugned order on 24.3.2011 without application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the order is liable to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though similarly placed persons have already been engaged as Gana Sikhyak, the case of the petitioner was not considered and the opposite party No.3 passed the impugned order on 24.3.2011 without application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the order is liable to be quashed. He further submitted that the petitioner was duly selected by the Village Education Committee as per the Scheme in EGS and AIE under Sarva Sikhya Abhijan and the guidelines issued for selection of Education Volunteers having requisite qualification. The Block Resource Centre Coordinator, Sarva Sikhya Abhijan, Soro Block after thorough inquiry also submitted a report on 3.6.2010 (Annexure-3) and he in his report confirms the engagement of the petitioner as Education Volunteer on 16.10.2007 and the petitioner joined on 17.10.2007 and has been continuing as such and discharging her duty sincerely. However" due to lack of knowledge, the Village, Education Committee did not send all the records for approval of the petitioner's engagement to the District Project Director, Balasore. Though prior to engagement of the petitioner, one Kishore Chandra Panda was working as Education Volunteer in the said Centre and he resigned from his post in April, 2007, the District Project Co-ordinator on 28th August, 2010 written allotter to the Village Education. Committee for engagement of Education Volunteer in the vacancy caused due to resignation of Sri Panda. Accordingly, Village Education Committee selected the petitioner and passed the resolution for engagement of the petitioner on 16.10.2007. Therefore, the opposite party should not have rejected the representation of the petitioner. 4. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department submitted that since the petitioner's engagement was not approved by the opposite party No.3, rightly the case of the, petitioner was rejected and the opposite party No.3 has passed a reasoned order and, therefore, interference with the said order is not warranted. 5. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, it is found that as per the Scheme of Education Volunteer, petitioner was duly engaged having requisite qualification by the Village Education Committee. 5. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, it is found that as per the Scheme of Education Volunteer, petitioner was duly engaged having requisite qualification by the Village Education Committee. The Block Resource Centre Co-ordinator, (SSA), Soro Block in his letter No. 273 dated 3.6.2010, Annexure-3, reflected that after engagement of the petitioner, she was continuing and discharging her duties as such and she has also enlisted 21 students of the locality from Class-I to Class-III, which was found on verification of the School Attendance and Admission Register of Attapur J.B. School and those students are genuine students. She imparted teaching process till closure of the Centre and also conducted Annual Examination privately and issued School Leaving Certificate and Transfer Certificate• to those students. A copy of the guideline for selection of Education Volunteers is also filed by the opposite parties in their counter as Annexure-B/4. In the said guideline nowhere it is stipulated that engagement of Education Volunteers, who were engaged by the Village Education Committee shall be approved by the C.E.O. or any other authority, rather, the said guideline reveals that after selection of the Education Volunteers by the Village Education Committee, the select list shall be sent to the District Project Co-ordinator for verification and if no irregularity is found in the selection process, the same shall be approved. In the present case, it is not the case of opposite parties that there was irregularity or any illegality in the selection process. of the petitioner as the Education Volunteer. Therefore, as per the said Government guideline, her selection is only required to be approved there being no other alternative option. However, said approval was not done by the opposite parties. In view of the above laches/inaction on the part of the Village Education Committee as well as the opposite parties, the petitioner should not suffer. Further, from the report of the Block Resource Centre Co-ordinator, it appears that the petitioner is continuing and discharging her duties to the best satisfaction of her immediate authority which is not in dispute. 6. In view of the above laches/inaction on the part of the Village Education Committee as well as the opposite parties, the petitioner should not suffer. Further, from the report of the Block Resource Centre Co-ordinator, it appears that the petitioner is continuing and discharging her duties to the best satisfaction of her immediate authority which is not in dispute. 6. Since there was material before the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Balasore-opposite party No.3 that there was no irregularity or illegality with regard to selection of the petitioner as Education Volunteer, the findings and rejection of the representation of the petitioner for engagement as Gana Sikhyak should have been annulled and, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, this Court quashed the impugned order dated 24.3.2011 passed by the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Balasore-opposite party No.3 vide Annexure-2 and directs him to consider the case of the petitioner for her engagement as Gana Sikhyak as per resolution dated 16.2.2008. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No cost. Petition allowed.