Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1936 (HP)

State Of Himachal Pradesh v. Anjana Rana

2018-11-05

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, SURYA KANT

body2018
JUDGMENT Surya Kant, C.J. - This order shall dispose of the above captioned Letters Patent Appeals, which are directed against the order dated 3rd July, 2012, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 5530 of 2010, titled as Chaman and others Vs. State of H.P. and another alongwith connected matters, the operative part whereof reads as follows: 2. During the course of arguments, it has been submitted by learned Assistant Advocate General that as per the new norms issued by LCT in April, 2010 under the Right to Education Act, the minimum qualification for primary teacher is B.Ed and therefore, after April, 2010, those who have completed four years, will not be entitled to be converted as Vidya Upasak until and unless they possessed minimum qualification as prescribed by the LCT. However, the petitioners, who had allegedly completed four years service prior to this date and they possessed minimum qualification of 10+2, their cases will be examined by the State Government and those, who comply with both the conditions of four years service plus 10+2 education qualification will be converted as Gramin Vidya Upasak. Each case will be examined on the facts and appropriate order shall be issued by the Director Elementary Education and the relief to which the petitioners are found as per letter dated 27.2.2009 Annexure P11 will be granted to all such petitioners. In regard to the other petitioners who have not completed four years service on April 2010 and are not possessing 10+2 qualification, their cases shall be considered by the State Government and steps shall be taken for their appropriate training under the scheme of the State Government so that they can be observed as Gramin Vidya Upasak in future. It is ordered accordingly. 2. Though there is a delay of more than three years and two months in filing these appeals for which separate applications for condonation of delay have been moved by the State, nevertheless, we have heard learned counsel for the parties on merit as well as in support of those applications. 3. Before adverting to the applications, a brief reference to the facts may be made. 4. With a view to meet with the exigency of Teachers in the Primary Schools, Human Resource Development Department of Elementary Education and Literacy, New Delhi introduced Education Guarantee Scheme (in short, EGS ) in the year 2001. 3. Before adverting to the applications, a brief reference to the facts may be made. 4. With a view to meet with the exigency of Teachers in the Primary Schools, Human Resource Development Department of Elementary Education and Literacy, New Delhi introduced Education Guarantee Scheme (in short, EGS ) in the year 2001. Respondents were appointed as Instructors under the said Education Guarantee Scheme in various Primary Schools of the State. 5. The Government of Himachal Pradesh, Primary Education Department thereafter took a policy decision dated 27th February, 2009 to the effect that the EGS Instructors who were appointed under the Education Guarantee Scheme and who had completed four years service and were having minimum 10+2 qualification, may be converted as Gramin Vidya Upasak under the Gram Panchayats, for which funds will be provided by the State Government to Gram Panchayats. In other words, the State Government agreed to provide requisite funds for payment of salary/wages to the Gramin Vidya Upasaks as per the abovesaid Policy. 6. The Policy decision was given effect and those who qualified the twin conditions of four years service as well as 10+2 qualification were brought under the umbrella of the Scheme. However, there were some EGS Instructors who did not fulfill either of the two qualifications and since they were denied the benefit of Government Scheme dated 27th February, 2009, some of them approached this Court. Their writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge in terms of the directions which have been reproduced in the opening part of this order. 7. The grievance of the State Government in these intra Court appeals is restricted qua the last part of the directions, namely, which pertains to those petitioners who though have not completed four years service in April 2010 and are not possessing 10+2 qualification, but their cases too have been directed to be considered and steps are to be taken for their appropriate training under the Scheme of the State Government, so that they can also be absorbed as Gramin Vidya Upasak in future. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length with reference to the abovementioned directions issued by the learned Single Judge. 9. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length with reference to the abovementioned directions issued by the learned Single Judge. 9. Regardless of the fact that there is inordinate delay of more than three years in filing the appeals, it has been brought to our notice that only 33 such candidates were identified and all of them are working as EGS Instructors and they are undergoing the training at their own expenses without causing any financial burden on the State exchequer. 10. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. Suffice to observe that the direction is not meant nor can it be construed to mean that even ineligible persons are to be absorbed. Learned Single Judge has given an opportunity to the unqualified persons to acquire the eligibility, so that the State Government may consider to extend the benefit of Policy dated 27th February, 2009 to them as well. We may hasten to add that the Policy dated 27th February, 2009 is not a one time relaxation. It is not a static Policy. It is pragmatic in nature, under which no cut off date has been prescribed and, therefore, as and when an EGS Instructor fulfills the conditions prescribed by the State Government, he is entitled to be considered for absorption as Gramin Vidya Upasak. That being the impact of this Policy, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference. 11. As regard to some of those respondents, who were appointed in District Chamba and who had left the job of EGS Instructors in 2008, i.e., much before the Policy Circular dated 27th February, 2009 came into force, suffice to clarify that the Policy Circular would apply to those EGS Instructors only who were in service and have subsequently acquired the eligibility conditions. 12. In view of the order passed hereinabove, all these appeals stand disposed of, so also miscellaneous applications, including condonation of delay applications. Registry shall also formally register these appeals. CMP No. 10618 of 2018 13. As the main appeal in which this application has been filed stands disposed of by a common judgment of even date, no order is required to be passed in this application. Disposed of accordingly.