Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1017 (ORI)

Lalit Jagal v. State of Orissa

2016-11-02

D.DASH

body2016
JUDGMENT : In this writ application, the petitioner seeks quashment of the order dated 27.05.2010 under Anneuxre-6 being illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eye of law. 2. Petitioner’s case is that he was appointed under Annexure-2 by the Grama Shiksha Committee as an Education Volunteer (EV) under EGS/AIE Programme run by Agranee Jana Kalyan Anusthan (AJKA), Paikmal vide letter dated 26.11.2002 and accordingly was discharging his duty in the said centre diligently. It is stated that only in the year 2010, he came to know that he had been retrenched by the Village Education Committee (VEC) on the ground of irregular discharge of duty and other illegal activities. According to him, such order of retrenchment, if any, was behind his back and at no point of time he was either asked to submit any explanation or had been heard in the matter. In the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no.4, it is stated that on 27.05.2010 no such order was passed nor it was so communicated to the petitioner rejecting his claim for consideration of his engagement as Gana Sikshyaka. In fact, a detail report being called for by the opposite party nos.1 and 2 as regards non-engagement of some of Education Volunteers as Gana Sikshyakas in the district of Bargarh, opposite party no.4 had provided the list of such educational volunteers giving the detail reasons of their non rehabilitation. Prior to the consideration of the matter of engagement of Education Volunteers of the district as Gana Sikshyakas as per the Resolution of the Government dated 16.02.2008, the petitioner having been retrenched by the Village Education Committee from the post of Education Volunteers and in his place opposite party no.5 since had been engaged by order dated 03.07.2006 by the said Village Education Committee who was at the relevant time discharging the duty as such, his case has been duly considered for rehabilitation as the petitioner’s case did not merit consideration being not coming within the purview of said Resolution under Annexure-2. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department. 4. Pursuant to the order of this Court learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department has also produced the original resolution book of Village Education Committee containing the resolution dated 30.06.2006. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department. 4. Pursuant to the order of this Court learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department has also produced the original resolution book of Village Education Committee containing the resolution dated 30.06.2006. A careful perusal of the same does not provide any impression as regard the such suspicious features as pointed out to have been appearing thereon on the last occasion by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Fact stands undisputed that this petitioner has not discharged his duty as Education Volunteers (EV) under E.G.S./A.I.E. Programme run by Agranee Jana Kalyan Anusthan (AJKA), Paikamal w.e.f. 01.07.2006. The closure of the said centre is after about a year or so. It is said that the retrenchment order was passed by the Village Education Committee behind his back and he was not aware of it till the month of July, 2010 when he could know about it from the letter of the Bargarh District Sikshyak Mahasangha, Bargarh under Anneuxre-5 containing Annexure-6 the list of the erstwhile Education Volunteers not rehabilitated as Gana Sikshyaks. However, no such step, whatsoever, is shown to have been taken even during the long period when the petitioner was not discharging the work as Education Volunteers nor was receiving the remuneration for the period till the closure of the centre. Therefore, such an explanation that the petitioner had no knowledge about his retrenchment and the other important consequential development of engagement of opp. party no.5 in that very centre and his subsequent rehabilitation till the month of July, 2010 is not satisfactory and thus not at all acceptable; more so when as against his post, the opposite party no.5 had been working till the closure of the centre receiving remuneration and then had been rehabilitated as Gana Sikshyak in consonance with the resolution of the Government under Annexure-2 before that and has by now working as such for quite a long length of time acting under the justified belief. 6. In view of the above, the grievance of this petitioner as made is no more redressable and the prayer advanced in this writ application does not merit consideration because of delay and latches on the part of the petitioner and under the facts and circumstances. 7. The writ application is accordingly dismissed.