Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 495 (ORI)

Pravat Kumar Pattnayak v. State of Odisha

2016-07-11

S.N.PRASAD

body2016
JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. 1. In all these writ petitions common issue is involved and as such the matter has been directed to be heard together and accordingly it has been heard together and is being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The orders dtd.14.01.2010 passed by the Additional Director (General of Orissa Primary Education Programme Authority are under challenge. 3. The facts of the cases of the petitioners in all these writ petitions are that all the petitioners being eligible as per the guideline for engagement in new E.G.S. Centre in different areas, made applications, got selected and the Village Education Committee of the said centre while appointing the petitioners as Education Volunteers for t he E.G.S. centres, recommended their appointment for approval but the petitioners have not been allowed to work on the plea that the centre will be upgraded to Primary School. The government of Odisha through Department of School and Mass Education has come out with decision as contained in resolution No.3358 dated 16.2.2008 resolving therein to rehabilitate all the disengaged Education Volunteers who have faced disengagement due to upgradation of EGS to regular Primary School as Gana Sikshyak under Sarva Sikshya Aviyana, in pursuance to the said resolution steps for engagement of disengaged Education Volunteers had been taken by the competent authority and the cases of the petitioners have also been enquired into who gave favourable report in their favour but the petitioners have not been engaged as Gana Sikshyak till date, although all the petitioners fulfill the eligibility criteria as laid down in the policy decision of the Government, petitioners having no option had approached this court under its writ jurisdiction and while disposing of the writ petitions this court has directed the opposite parties to take decision with respect to the grievance of the petitioners within stipulated time and in terms of the order passed by this court the authorities have taken decision but rejected their claims vide impugned orders, hence this writ petition on the ground that the authorities have passed the order without application of mind and without considering the fact that they have been engaged with approval of the District E.G.S. Committee. A report to that effect has also been submitted showing the fact that the petitioners have been engaged by the Village Education Committee, hence the authority ought to have taken into consideration the case of the petitioners for their rehabilitation by engaging them as Gana Sikshyak. 4. On the other hand opposite parties – State has appeared and filed counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party nos. 3 & 4, inter-alia stating therein that there is no infirmity in the decision taken by the authority. It has been stated that although the petitioners have been engaged by the Village Education Committee but their engagement has not been approved by the District E.G.S. Committee as required under the guideline for Employment Guarantee Scheme containing procedure for selection of Education Volunteers by Village Education Committee. It has been stated that the scheme has been closed w.e.f. 01.04.2008 but this court has disposed of the writ petition after closure of the scheme, but even thereafter the cases of the petitioners have been considered but in course of consideration it was found that the petitioners were engaged by the Village Education Committee without approval of the District E.G.S. Committee and the names of these Education Volunteers were sent to the district office two days prior to closure of E.G.S. on 1.4.2008 as per the report and hence it has been found that the engagement of these Education Volunteers made by the Village Education Committee is complete illegal and done in violation of the existing guideline. It has further been stated that the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Cuttack being the competent authority has never approved the engagement of the petitioners as Education Volunteers in any E.G.S. Centre of the district and as such the petitioners are not entitled for rehabilitation engagement as Gana Sikshyak. It has further been stated that the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Cuttack being the competent authority has never approved the engagement of the petitioners as Education Volunteers in any E.G.S. Centre of the district and as such the petitioners are not entitled for rehabilitation engagement as Gana Sikshyak. With respect to the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that this court has directed the Collector, Cuttack to take decision but the Collector has not taken decision rather the Additional Director (General) has taken decision which was communicated to the Collector-cum Chairman, SSA, Cuttack and as such the orders passed by the authority (impugned) are not in consonance with the order passed by this court, it has been submitted in response by the learned counsel representing opposite party – State that the Collector being the authority in the district level has rightly not passed the order, rather the Additional Director who formulates the policy decision and also governs the selection process of Education Volunteers being the Nodal Authority, i.e. Orissa Primary Education Programme Authority and as such there is no infirmity in passing the order passed by the Orissa Primary Education Programme Authority, moreover, the petitioners have not been prejudiced in any way if the order has not been passed by the Collector since the factual aspect cannot be disputed regarding approval of the engagement of the petitioners as Education Volunteers by the district E.G.S. Committee. It has been contended by the learned counsel representing opposite party – State that since the engagement of the petitioners as Education Volunteers itself is not in consonance with the guideline, as such after closure of the scheme they cannot be said to be entitled for any rehabilitation by appointing them as Gana Sikshyak as per the policy decision of the Government. 5. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record. The State Government has come out with Education Guarantee Scheme and Alternative & innovative Education (EGS & AIE) which provides engagement of Education Volunteers by the Village Education Committee which will receive applications, scrutinize them and short-list suitable candidates. In order to consider the case of the retrenched Non-Formal Education Instructors / Supervisors, he may be given preference who belong to that villager or nearest village and at best within the same Gram Panchayat for engagement as Education Volunteers. In order to consider the case of the retrenched Non-Formal Education Instructors / Supervisors, he may be given preference who belong to that villager or nearest village and at best within the same Gram Panchayat for engagement as Education Volunteers. The Village Education Committee will empanel three persons in order of merit as per above priority. The Village Education Committee will send the panel to D.P.O. The District EGS committee after scrutiny will approve one of the person out of the suggestions made by the Village Education Committee, who will be engaged as Education Volunteers in the said centre. The Village Education Committee will execute an agreement with the Education Volunteers towards contracting his voluntary services for engagement in EGS centres. For ready reference the selection of Education Volunteers by the Village Education Committee as contained in the guideline is being reproduced hereunder as:- “It is further clarified that in case of NFE Instructors/Supervisors getting preference, they must belong to that village or nearest village and at best within the same Gram Panchayat. The VEC will empanel three persons in order of merit as per above priority. However in some cases there may not be three persons available. In such cases VEC will send the names of eligible, available candidates. Except on allegation that some miscarriage of justice in the selection has been made, the selection of the panel of the candidates chosen by the VEC shall normally adhered to. The VEC will send the panel list to DPO. The District EGS Committee after scrutiny will approve one of the person out of the suggestions made by VEC, who will be engaged as EV in the said centre. Unless otherwise found to be unjust or illegal, the first priority of the VEC be accepted. The VEC will send the panel list to DPO. The District EGS Committee after scrutiny will approve one of the person out of the suggestions made by VEC, who will be engaged as EV in the said centre. Unless otherwise found to be unjust or illegal, the first priority of the VEC be accepted. The VEC will execute an agreement with the EV towards contracting his voluntary services for engagement in EGS centres.” It is evident from the procedure for selection that the applications by respective candidates has to be submitted before the Village Education Committee, the Committee will suggest name of the persons to be approved by the District EGS Committee, meaning thereby the Village Education Committee has not been empowered as the ultimate authority for engagement of Education Volunteers, rather it is only the recommending body and unless and until the recommendation of the committee will be approved by the district EGS committee, the recommendation of the Village Education Committee regarding engagement of one or the other candidate cannot be said to be engagement as Education Volunteer in terms of the provision of the guideline. So far as the case of the petitioners in these writ petitions, there is no dispute about the fact that the Village Education Committee has engaged but nothing has been brought on record regarding approval of the recommendation of the Village Education Committee by the District EGS Committee. Hence the petitioners cannot be said to be engaged as Education Volunteers in view of the fact that their engagement has never been approved by the District EGS Committee although the same has been recommended as would be evident from the report of the Tahasildar annexed to the writ petitions, which also suggest that the recommendation of the engagement of the petitioners made by the village education committee was not approved and it is for that reason only the petitioners have approached this court by way of writ petition and this court has directed opposite party no.3, Collector, Cuttack to take decision and in the light of the order passed by this court the authority has rejected the claim by giving reasoning therein that the case of the petitioners cannot be considered since they have been engaged by the village education committee without approval of the district EGS committee which is the requirement as per the guideline as has been quoted herein above. It has further been stated in the impugned order that the names of these petitioners have been sent to the district office two days prior to closure of E.G.S. on 1.4.2008 and as such the authorities have given specific reasoning in rejecting the claim that there is no question of any rehabilitation since the petitioners have not been engaged as per the procedure laid down in the guideline quoted herein above. There is no dispute about the fact that the Government has come out with a resolution to rehabilitate such education volunteers who have been engaged and disengaged after closure of the centre for its upgradation, but the rehabilitation package can only be given to such candidates who have been engaged by following the due procedure as laid down in the guideline and in case of engagement being not in consonance with the guideline such candidates cannot claim any benefit of the rehabilitation package. In these cases specific finding has been given by the Additional Director (General), Odisha Primary Education Programme Authority communicating the order to the Collector-cum Chairman, SSA, Cuttack that merely on the ground of engagement by the Village Education Committee no benefit of rehabilitation package can be given to such candidates since their engagement cannot be said to be in consonance with the guideline which provides that the Village Education Committee is only the recommending body and so long as their recommendation will not be approved by the district EGS committee the engagement cannot be said to be proper. In view of these findings the Additional Director (General) has passed the order and as such in my considered view there is no infirmity in the same. 6. The contention raised by the learned counsel representing the petitioners that this court has passed order directing the Collector-cum-Chairman, SSA, Cuttack to take decision but in place of the Collector, the Additional Director (General), Odisha Primary Education Programme Authority has taken decision, hence the same is not fit to be sustained, but I find that there is no substance in this argument as because the Gana Sikshyak scheme has been operated under t he direction and guidelines of the Odisha Primary Education Programme Authority being the nodal body and as such the Additional Director of the authority has taken decision considering the factual aspect. The Collector being the local authority has not passed the order but merely on that ground the impugned order cannot be said to be improper for the reason that the petitioners cannot been said to be prejudiced in anyway in view of the facts that the appointment of the petitioners which has not been approved by the district EGS committee which is the requirement to get benefit under the rehabilitation package providing benefit to disengaged Education Volunteers, after taking into consideration this factual aspect the Additional Director (General), Odisha Primary Education Programme Authority has passed the order. Further in the entire pleadings it has not been stated that how the petitioners have been prejudiced if the order has not been passed by the Collector. In view of the reasons mentioned herein above, in my considered view, no infirmity has been committed by the authority while passing the order. In the result, there is no merit in these writ petitions and accordingly the writ petitions stand dismissed.