The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.7527 of 2016 Dhaniadhar Tandi …. Petitioner Mr. B. Dash, Advocate State of Odisha and Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 20.11.2024 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Facts
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging order dated 19.01.2016, so passed by O.P. No.4 under Annexure-11. Vide the said order, claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of engagement as a Gana Sikshyak taking into account the fact that petitioner is a disengaged Education Volunteer was rejected. 4. It is contended that claim of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that no document could be provided by the petitioner, showing that petitioner was // 2 // engaged as an Education Volunteer under EGS Scheme.
Legal Reasoning
that even though there is no dispute that Kuliadar Naik Pada EGS Centre under Turekela Block in the district of Bolangir was an approved EGS Centre, but since no records and documents are available with regard to approval of the engagement of the petitioner as an Education Volunteer of the said Centre, claim of the petitioner was rejected. 5.1. It is also contended that petitioner since was never approved by the District EGS Committee as an Education Volunteer of the Centre, it cannot be held that petitioner was duly engaged as an Education Volunteer so engaged with execution of the agreement with the Village Education Committee. It is accordingly contended that since petitioner was never engaged as an Education Volunteer with due approval of the District EGS Committee, claim of the petitioner has been rightly rejected vide the impugned order dated 19.01.2016 under Annexure-11. Page 3 of 6 // 4 // 6. To the submissions made by learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the guideline issued for engagement of Education Volunteer under the EGS and AIE Scheme, contended that no such requirement was there that the engagement of the petitioner as an Education Volunteer has to be approved by the District EGS Committee. Placing reliance on Para-12 of the guideline, it is contended that only when more than one candidate are found eligible to get the benefit of engagement, Village Education Committee will refer the the panel of candidate to the district EGS Committee and District EGS Committee after due scrutiny will approve one of the person out of the panel so submitted by the VEC to act as Education Volunteer. 6.1. It is contended that since in the case of the petitioner, petitioner was the only available candidate, the VEC not only selected him but also executed an agreement under Annexure-4 and in terms of the that agreement, petitioner continued as an Education Volunteer in the centre in question till the centre was abolished. Relevant extract of Para-12 of the guideline reads as follows:- is further clarified “It of NFE Instructors/Supervisors getting preference, they must belong to that village or nearest village and at best within the same Gram Panchayat. case that in Page 4 of 6 // 5 // 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 candidate/s. 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 execute an agreement with the EV towards contracting his voluntary services for engagement in EGS centres.” 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that in terms of the resolution passed by the Village Education Committee under Annexure-1 and the subsequent resolution passed on 11.04.2002 under Annexure-2 and 18.09.2002 under Annexure-3, petitioner was selected as an education volunteer in respect of Kuliadar Naik Pada EGS Centre. 7.1. As found and in terms of the guideline, petitioner executed an agreement with the VEC under Annexure- 4 and accordingly he was engaged as an Education Volunteer in respect of the Centre in question. This Court after going through Para-12 of the guideline, is of the view that approval of the District EGS committee is required only when a panel of candidates is sent by the VEC for scrutiny and approval. Since in the present case, petitioner was the only candidate available, who was selected by the VEC, no such approval of the EGS Committee was required. Page 5 of 6 // 6 // 7.2. On the face of the document available under Annexure-1 to 9 and in view of the aforesaid analysis, it is the view of this Court that the ground on which claim of the petitioner has been rejected, is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order dated 19.01.2016, so passed by O.P. No.4 under Annexure-11. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to O.P. No.4 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the petitioner taking into account the guideline issued by the Govt. more particularly Para-12 of the guideline and the observation of this Court as indicated hereinabove. Such a fresh decision as directed be taken within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to the petitioner. 8.
Arguments
4.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner placing reliance on the document available under Annexure-1 to 9, contended that basing on the decision taken by the Village Education Committee in its Resolution dated 11.04.2002 under Annexure-3, an agreement was executed in between petitioner and the Village Education Committee under Annexure-4, engaging the petitioner as an Education Volunteer in respect of Kuliadar Naik Pada EGS Centre. 4.2. It is also contended that on being so engaged as an Education Volunteer in terms of the agreement executed under Annexure-4, petitioner discharged the duty of education volunteer till such engagement as an education volunteer was withdrawn by the Govt. and subsequent decision taken to re-engage those disengaged Education Volunteers as Gana Sikshyak in terms of the resolution issued by the Govt. on 16.02.2008 under Annexure-A/4. 4.3. It is contended that petitioner though produced all the documents so enclosed vide Annexure-1 to 9 before O.P. No.4 for consideration of his claim to get the benefit of engagement as Gana Sikshyak, but without proper appreciation of the same, claim of the petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dated Page 2 of 6 // 3 // 19.01.2016 under Annexure-11 on the ground that petitioner in support of his continuance as Education Volunteer could not produce any document. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by O.P. No.4. It is contended
Decision
The Writ Petition is disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Designation: SR. STENO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 26-Nov-2024 10:59:36 Page 6 of 6