Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 153 (UTT)

Urmila Rani v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-04-03

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. List has been revised. 2. None appears for the respondent no.6 to assist the Court, hence this Court has no option except to proceed ex parte in his absence. 3. The petitioner has filed the writ petition for the following reliefs :- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 12.02.2009 (Annexure-3) and proposal dated 04.07.2006 (Annexure-7). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 to remove the respondent no.6 from service and appoint the petitioner on the place of respondent no.6 or direct to respondents to issue appointment order to the petitioner for the post of Shiksha Mitra against other vacant post of Shiksha Mitra in said Primary School. (iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the candidature of five Shiksha Acharyas was being considered for appointment as Shiksha Mitra, three of them were excluded from the zone of consideration, this list of three Shiksha Acharyas whose name was excluded, it included the name of the petitioner, on the premise that she does not hold a degree of graduation, which was an essential qualification as required for appointment of Shiksha Mitra, on the up-gradation of the Education Guarantee Centres into a Primary School. As a matter of fact, on the scrutiny of the impugned order dated 12.02.2009, as issued by the Additional District Education Officer, Basic, this has been the sole premise on which the petitioner’s candidature is said to have not been considered for appointment as Shiksha Mitra as she was held not to be graduate. 5. The another order which has been put to challenge by the petitioner, is the order of 4th July, 2006, by virtue of which the respondent no.6, as per the petitioner’s case has been clandestinely appointed, despite of the fact that she had never worked as Shiksha Mitra in the Centres which has been established under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. Later on, up-graded as Primary School. 6. Later on, up-graded as Primary School. 6. On the said premise, the petitioner in the present writ petition has sought a prayer that after setting aside the appointment of respondent no.6, as made by the respondent vide resolution dated 04.07.2006, she since fulfills all the eligibility criteria and since she being Shiksha Acharya, who has established the Centres may be granted appointment as Shiksha Mitra after removal of respondent no.6 from the post of Shiksha Mitra. 7. Heard Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.S. Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos.1 to 4. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to the decision taken by the State Government, the State Government has launched a scheme called as Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme and as per terms of scheme has established Education Guarantee Centres in various Gram Panchayat level, at the local level too called as Gram Shiksha Samiti, which in turn was under the Education Guarantee Centres which were established. 9. It is the contention of the petitioner and as also would be apparent from the resolution dated 01.11.2004 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) that it has been certified by the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat that the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Acharya under the Education Guarantee Scheme and has worked since 1st November, 2004. 10. It is the case of the petitioner further that in pursuance to the decision taken by the State Government, it has directed that all those candidates who have worked as Shiksha Acharya in the Education Guarantee Centres on its up-gradation of the Centre as Primary School, the Shiksha Acharya thus working would be adorned with the status of Shiksha Mitra, subject to the condition that they fulfill the basic criteria and hold requisite qualification. 11. Petitioner’s contention is that ever since 2004, after being appointed as Shiksha Acharya, she has worked as Shiksha Acharya till up-gradation of the Centre as Primary School, couple with the fact that, since she already had a graduation degree issued in her favour by Kumaun University as back as in 1988 bearing Roll No.34396, she would be deemed to be eligible under the relevant Government Order for being granted the status of Shiksha Mitra. But the respondents in order to accommodate the respondent no.6, who had never functioned as Shiksha Acharya, and who is wife of the Pradhan was granted the benefit, and was given the status of Shiksha Mitra, by manipulating the documents under the influence of the Pradhan, who was the husband of respondent no.6. 12. In response to the writ petition, the counter affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4. The learned counsel for the respondents has stressed upon the averments made in paras 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit, wherein, he has submitted that based on the inquiry report dated 25.08.2008, as submitted by the Block Education Officer, petitioner was held ineligible on the ground that she was not graduate, since the findings as recorded therein run contrary to the eligibility of the petitioner and she would not be recommended for granting the status of Shiksha Mitra exclusively based on the report of Block Education Officer. 13. In para 7 also, the learned Standing Counsel would submit that the petitioner would not be found eligible in accordance with the guidelines of the NCTE for appointment as an Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School. Because she was not having requisite qualification i.e. BTC/DLEd Plus TETI and B.Ed Plus TETI (Special BTC) etc. as required under law. 14. Both arguments as extended by learned counsel for the respondents are not acceptable by this Court for the reason that on scrutiny of the report dated 25.08.2008, is in itself contradictory because in terms of the finding recorded by the Deputy Block Education Officer, he records the findings that the petitioner had worked in the Education Guarantee Centre, Ramjeevanpur-3 since November, 2004 to 2005-06 as Shiksha Acharya. He further proceeds to record a contradictory findings that the petitioner has not worked in the said Centre and other findings recorded to run contrary to the records, to the effect that as to what would be the effect of up-gradation of Centre in the Primary School and the benefit which would accrue to the petitioner on being up-graded and granted the status of Shiksha Mitra. 15. The second contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is not acceptable for two reasons :- (i) Ground of qualification is not the ground which has been assigned in the impugned order dated 12.02.2009, while holding the petitioner ineligible. 15. The second contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is not acceptable for two reasons :- (i) Ground of qualification is not the ground which has been assigned in the impugned order dated 12.02.2009, while holding the petitioner ineligible. (ii) Secondly, the qualification as mentioned in para 7, was not the qualification which was in vogue at the time when the status was being granted to that of a Shiksha Mitra in 2006. Besides this, the reason assigned in para 7 of the counter affidavit, since not being the reason in the impugned order for declining to grant the status of Shiksha Mitra to the petitioner, the same would not be agitated by the respondents by qualifying their stand as taken in the counter affidavit contrary to grounds and reasons given in the order under challenge. 16. In that view of the matter, since admittedly as per the documents on record the petitioner has been inducted as Shiksha Mitra on 01.11.2004, and as per the certificate which has been made available on the record he worked as Shiksha Acharya and couple with the findings recorded by Assistant Block Development Officer in the inquiry report, she has worked as Shiksha Acharya till the Education Guarantee Centre was up-graded into Primary School and since she had the requisite qualification of graduation available with her, her candidature could not have been rejected and she ought to have been granted the status of Shiksha Mitra. 17. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 12.02.2009 and proposal dated 04.07.2006 (A3 and A7 to the writ petition) are quashed. The petitioner is held to be eligible in view of the fact that she has done her graduation in 1988, which was the essential qualification required for grant of the status of Shiksha Mitra in 2006. The appointment of respondent no.6 has made by the impugned order dated 04.07.2006 is quashed. The post thus falling vacant as a consequence of quashing the appointment of respondent no.6, would now be made available to the petitioner after taking into consideration the fact that she has already worked as Shiksha Acharya since 1st November, 2004, and she was eligible for appointment at the relevant time and the respondent no.6 was appointed contrary to the rules. 18. Accordingly, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. No order as to costs.