ORDER : 1. The petitioner (Shashikala Tiwari) is aggrieved by rejection of her request for regularization; her writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge - an order affirmed by the Division Bench. 2. The necessary facts are that the petitioner was appointed as “Second Guruji”, i.e. teacher, on 18.3.2002 in Shiksha Guarantee School at Baghelan Tola, Kapsa. The appointment letter was issued by the Gram Panchayat Sarpanch. The petitioner claims that she has worked in the capacity of the second Guruji from the time when she was given the initial assignment. 3. Later, based upon representations made by her and certain inter se correspondence exchanged departmentally by the State, she approached the High Court complaining willful inaction on the part of the State, seeking directions for her regularization as well as payment of regular salary. The petitioner alleged that she was being paid a token honorarium all the while. 4. The Single Judge by order dated 15.7.2013 disposed of the writ petition directing authorities to consider her claim. The State on 31.8.2013, rejected her request. This led the petitioner to approach the High Court again by another writ petition (W.P. No.22440/2013). 5. After considering the record and the pleadings, the Single Judge by his order dismissed the writ petition. The writ appeal filed by the petitioner met with the same fate. 6. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the documents on the record overwhelmingly substantiate the fact that not only she was working all the while and being paid the token honorarium that she did receive, but also that crucially the State had sought verification as to whether she had, in fact, been appointed and was discharging her duties as Guruji. 7. Reliance was placed upon the District Authority’s verification report issued on 23.11.2005. Likewise, the petitioner has also relied upon the letter dated 12.6.2002, which discloses (in a chart annexed to it at serial No.67), her name and the date from which she was continuously working. 8. This Court had by an order dated 8.11.2019 required the State to place on record the documents referred to in the order of the Single Judge as well as the order of the Chief Executive Officer dated 7.6.2002, by which the petitioner was initially appointed. 9. 8. This Court had by an order dated 8.11.2019 required the State to place on record the documents referred to in the order of the Single Judge as well as the order of the Chief Executive Officer dated 7.6.2002, by which the petitioner was initially appointed. 9. In response, the State has filed an additional affidavit (which is an amplification of its stand reflected by it in the counter affidavit as well as in compliance of this Court’s Order dated 8.11.2019). 10. It is brought to the notice of the Court by the State that the names of 11 (eleven) such Guruji(s) were recommended for regularization but only 6 (six) of them were actually given that relief or benefit. 11. Counsel for the State has drawn the attention of the Court to the letter issued by the State Education Center on 30.10.2001 sanctioning new Education Guarantee Schools. The letter lists as many as 405 such Primary Schools and 19 Secondary Education Guarantee Schools. 12. The State’s position with regard to the consideration of the petitioner’s claim is that the approval for appointment of Guruji(s) in 6 (six) Education Guarantee Schools approved out of the proposal sent (which included the proposal in respect of 5 others) was granted. 13. According to the additional affidavit filed by the respondent-State, appointments of the 5 (five) remaining Guruji(s) were not effected because of “large distance from the Village and proposed location of Education Guarantee School and non-fulfillment of various criterions.” 14. What is evident from the facts narrated above is that the State does not dispute that the petitioner had, in fact, been appointed when she claims that she was in June, 2002. The documents on record bear out her claim that she was so appointed – the only disputed aspect here is that the State claims that the appointment was not made by it, but rather by the local Gram Panchayat Sarpanch. The State does not dispute also possibly the qualification held by her. Furthermore, the concerned Education Center, i.e., Kapsa also finds place at serial No.378 in the list, which forms part of the Order dated 30.10.2001 of the State Education Center. 15. The Single Judge reasoned that the petitioner could not lay claim to the post since somebody else had been accommodated on a regular basis. However, what is undeniable is that the petitioner worked continuously although on honorarium basis. 16. 15. The Single Judge reasoned that the petitioner could not lay claim to the post since somebody else had been accommodated on a regular basis. However, what is undeniable is that the petitioner worked continuously although on honorarium basis. 16. The additional affidavit filed by the respondent-State is unsatisfactory inasmuch as it does not spell out why the petitioner and four others were excluded from consideration for regularization. In this regard, it would be useful to extract the relevant parts of the affidavit, which reads as follows : “10. The direction for appointment of Guruji was only granted in the sanctioned Education Guarantee Schools which were in compliance of Education Guarantee Scheme parameters and approved after due consideration of various factors such as distance and pre-existing schools. 11. That the directions for the appointment of Guruji were accordingly only issued on the basis of the List of Education Guarantee Schools that received sanction in the aforesaid letters. 12. That the approval for the appointment of Guruji in 06 Education Guarantee Schools approved out of the proposal sent for the appointment of 11 Guruji(s) shown in the letter dated 7.6.2002 has been granted, who are presently working in the Education Guarantee Schools. The appointment of remaining 05 Guruji(s) has not been made because of large distance from the Village and proposed location of Education Guarantee School and nonfulfillment of various criterions. Thus their names were not included in the updated approved list. The particulars of the above-mentioned 11 Guruji(s) are as under :” 17. This Court is unable to fathom the precise reason which lead the State to conclude that though the School where the petitioner was initially engaged in, figures in the list of 405 Education Centers, and even though her name was sent up for consideration, what precisely was the infirmity in her claim. At one place – in paragraph 10, the State seems to suggest that the parameters spelt out in the Education Guarantee Scheme were not fulfilled; in another part, i.e. paragraph 12, the distance between the Village and the proposed location of the school being the determinative criteria has been given as a justification. This Court finds the rationale facially unreasonable. 18. This Court finds the rationale facially unreasonable. 18. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner has not been fairly considered - given that she continuously and undeniably discharged her duties as the second Guruji. 19. It is now also a fact that some portion of her land was acquired for construction of the School. 20. Having regard to these factors, the State is hereby directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization and any consequential benefits, afresh. 21. This consideration shall be strictly on the basis of the parameters of the Education Guarantee Scheme, pursuant to which 405 Education Schools were approved/listed in the order dated 30.10.2001. 22. The State shall pass appropriate orders after taking all aspects into consideration and communicate it directly to the petitioner within six weeks from today. 23. The special leave petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications are also disposed of.