The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4041 of 2022 Chandra Dhwaja Meher & Others …. Petitioners Mr. S.N. Biswal, Advocate State of Odisha & Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. B.P. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. 10. 1. This matter
Decision
ORDER 06.11.2023 taken up is through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter 3. alia challenging the order dtd.18.11.2011 so passed by the Collector & District Magistrate, Bolangir-Opposite Party No.3 in Misc. Case No.43/2021 under Annexure-18. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Opposite Party No.2 initially issued an advertisement on 25.12.1999 for engagement of 12623 numbers of Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayakas (in short SSS) in different districts of the State which includes the district of Bolangir. 4.1. It is further contended that in respect of Bolangir Districts, 613 numbers of SSS were shown to be filled up. // 2 // However, subsequent to such advertisement, Opposite Party No.1 vide Resolution No.27002 dtd.03.10.2000 under Annexure-3 decided to engage 2600 numbers of SSS from out of the total 12623 SSSs, so advertised in 8 numbers of DPEP District which includes the district of Bolangir. Similarly, vide Resolution No.27021 dtd.03.10.2000 under Annexure-5, Government-Opposite Party No.1 decided the fill up the balance 10023 SSSs in non-DPEP district. 4.2. It is contended that basing on the Resolution issued by the Government-Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-3, the Petitioners having belong to the district of Bolangir, they were engaged as Para Teacher vide orders issued under Annexure-19-Series. 4.3. It is contended that even though Opposite Party No.2 vide his advertisement issued under Annexure-2 decided to fill up 12623 numbers of SSSs in all the 30 districts of the State, but in view of the subsequent Resolution issued by the Government under Annexure-3, out of those 12623 Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayakas, 2600 Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayakas were posted as Para Teacher in 8 DPEP districts which includes the district of Bolangir. Similarly, pursuant to the Resolution issued under Annexure-5, the balance 10023 SSSs were filled up in other non-DPEP district. 4.4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that since the Petitioners were engaged as Page 2 of 5 // 3 // Para Teachers, in view of subsequent decision taken by the Government-Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-3 and the other batch were engaged as Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayakas in terms of the Resolution issued under Annexure-5, they stand in the similar footing as that of the Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayakas engaged in terms of Annexure-5. However, Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayakas engaged in non-DPEP districts though were regularized w.e.f. 01.04.2008, but the Petitioners who were engaged as Para Teachers in terms of the Resolution issued under Annexure-3 were regularized only in the year 2012. 4.5. Since both the Para Teachers and Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayakas were engaged in terms of the subsequent Resolution issued under Annexures-3 and 5 respectively and the original advertisement was issued to fill up 12623 numbers of the Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayakas by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-2, the Petitioners are eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization from the date Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayakas were so regularized w.e.f.01.04.2008 in non- DPEP district. 4.6. It is contended that the when the Petitioners made such type of claim to get the benefit of regularization from the date Sikshya Sahayaks in non- DPEP districts were regularized, this Court vide order dtd.10.08.2021 in W.P.(C) No.711/2017 directed Opposite Party No.3 to take a decision on the claim made by the Petitioners in the Page 3 of 5 // 4 // representation annexed as Annexure-11 to the said writ petition. 4.7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that basing on the such order passed by this Court on 10.08.2021, though Opposite Party No.3 finds the claim of the Petitioners to be a genuine one, but declined to extend the benefit on the ground that it is not prudent to give retrospective effect to the Resolution issued by the Department in absence of any express provision regarding the same. 4.8. It is contended that in view of such view of Opposite Party No.3 and taking into account the fact that the Petitioners were engaged as Para Teachers in DPEP districts pursuant to the Resolution issued by the Government on 03.10.2000, Government- Opposite Party No.1 be directed to consider the claim of the Petitioners with quashing of the order passed by the Collector under Annexure-18. 5. Even though counter affidavit has been filed and Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Addl. Government Advocate made his submission by supporting the impugned order, but he fairly contented that the matter requires adjudication by the Government as the Petitioners were engaged as Para Teachers in DPEP districts basing on the decision taken by the Government on 03.10.2000 under Annexure-3. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court is also of Page 4 of 5 // 5 // the view that the claim of the Petitioners to get the benefit of regularization from the date similarly situated Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaks were regularized in non- DPEP districts is required to be considered by Opposite Party No.1. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the order dtd.18.11.2021 so passed by Opposite Party No.3 in Misc. Case No.43 of 2011 under Annexure-18. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to consider the grievance of the petitioner as made in the writ petition within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner No.1 on behalf of the Petitioners is permitted to provide copy of this order along with the supporting documents in support of the claim before Opposite Party No.1 within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this order and for compliance of the direction of this Court. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 11-Nov-2023 11:33:06 Page 5 of 5