The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.26042 of 2021 Prabhat Kumar Beura & Others …. Petitioners Mr.B.S. Tripathy-1, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 18.03.2024 Order No. 20. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Petitioners have filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following order:- “(A) a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ may be issued quashing the impugned order dated 02.07.2021 passed by the State Government in School and Mass Educatiion Department under Annexure:8 and necessary direction maybe issued to the opposite parties to treat the petitioners at par with Non-DPEP to Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks regularize their services with effect from 01.04.2008 at least on notional basis for the purpose of other service benefits instead of 2012 like that of Non-DPEP Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks (Para Teachers) with all consequential service benefits, within a time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court; (Para Teachers) and (B) quash impugned Addendum under Annexure:10 by holding the same as not only illegal, but also contrary to an violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; // 2 // And any other order / orders or direction / directions (C) may be issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioners”. 4.
Legal Reasoning
It is contended that in terms of Resolution issued by the Government in the Department of School & Mass Education vide Resolution No.27021 dtd.03.10.2000 under Annexure-1 and Resolution No.27002 of the even date under Annexure-2, eligible candidates were engaged as Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks ( in short SSS) in 8 DPEP Districts and rest non-DPEP districts. While pursuant to Annexure-2, Petitioners were engaged as SSS in 8 DPEP districts, similarly situated candidates were engaged as SSS in non-DPEP Districts in terms of the Resolution issued under Annexure-1. 4.1. It is contended that even though Petitioners’ appointment in DPEP districts was funded by the Government of India, but when the funding was closed w.e.f. 30.06.2003, a conscious decision was taken by the Opposite Parties under Annexure-9 to continue with the salary of the Petitioners to be borne by the State Government. 4.2. It is contended that even though the scheme was closed w.e.f. 30.06.2003, but Petitioners were allowed to continue as SSS as before in terms of the Resolution issued under Annexure-2 and the decision taken under Annexure-9. Page 2 of 8 // 3 // 4.3. It is also contended that the word Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayak which was reflected in Annexures-1 and 2 was modified with issuance of the Resolution dtd.31.05.2006 under Annexure-4. Vide the said Resolution the engagement of the Petitioners as Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks in terms of the Resolution issued under Annexure-2 and the engagement of other group of Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks engaged in terms of the Resolution issued under Annexure-1 were treated as Sikhya Sahayak for all purposes. 4.4. It is also contended that vide Resolution issued on 10.01.2008 under Annexure-5, it was decided that the function of the Elementary Education will be transferred in phases to Zilla Parishad and other Panchayatraj Institutions. It is also decided that henceforth all the Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks including the existing one shall be called as Sikhya Sahayaks. It was further decided that all new Sikhya Sahayaks will be engaged by the Zilla Parishad as per the requirement under the programme of Elementary Education and Sarbha Sikshya Avijan(SSA). 4.5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that while the Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks / Sikhya Sahayaks so engaged in terms of the Resolution issued under Annexure-1 in non-DPEP Districts were regularized as Junior Teacher w.e.f. the year 2006 and regular Primary School Teacher w.e.f. 01.04.2008, but the Page 3 of 8 // 4 // present group of Petitioners who were engaged as Sikhya Sahayaks / Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks in terms of the Resolution issued under Annexure-2 in DPEP districts were regularized as regular Primary School Teacher w.e.f. 28.02.2012 vide order dtd.26.06.2013 under Annexure-6 in terms of the addendum issued by the Government in the Department of School & Mass Education on 26.02.2009 under Annexure-10. 4.6. It is contended that since both the groups of Sikhya Sahayaks and/or Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks were engaged in terms of similar Resolution issued under Annexures-1 & 2 and the other group of Sikhya Sahayaks / Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks were regularized as regular Primary School Teacher w.e.f. 01.04.2008, the regularization of the present petitioners w.e.f. 28.02.2012 vide Annexure-6 in terms of the addendum issued by the Department on 26.02.2009 under Annexure-10 is not only illegal but also discriminatory and violative of Articles-14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4.7. Making all such submissions, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that since the present petitioners are similarly situated as like other group of Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks / Sikhya Sahayaks engaged in non-DPEP districts pursuant to similar Resolution issued under Annexure-1, they were also eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization as Primary School Teachers w.e.f. 01.04.2008. Page 4 of 8 // 5 // Learned counsel for the Petitioners while showing the bonafideness, also contended that if the Petitioners will be regularized on notional basis w.e.f. 01.04.2008 as regular Primary School Teachers, they will have no further grievances. 5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opposite Party No.1. It is contended that even though in terms of the Resolution issued under Annexures-1 and 2 both the groups of Sikhya Sahayaks / Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks were engaged in non-DPEP and DPEP districts, but the process of selection and engagement of Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks is different in respect of the present petitioners vis-à-vis the Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks engaged in terms of the Resolution issued under Annexure-1. While pursuant to Annexure-1, SSS were engaged by facing due recruitment process, the present petitioners in terms of Annexure-2 were engaged as Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks on being selected by the Village Education Committee. 5.1. It is accordingly contended that since the nature of selection and engagement is different in respect of the present petitioners vis-à-vis the other group who were engaged in terms of Annexure-1 resolution, they cannot claim parity with the other group of Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks. Page 5 of 8 // 6 // 5.2. It is also contended that since the present Petitioners were engaged under a Scheme which was closed w.e.f. 30.06.2003, Petitioners after closure of the scheme could have been terminated from their engagement. But Government took a conscious decision to continue with the Petitioners in terms of the decision taken in the proceeding of the meeting dtd.03.07.2003 under Annexure-9 and subsequent decision taken by the Department while issuing the addendum on 26.02.2009 under Annexure-10. 5.3. It is accordingly contended that since the Petitioners on the face of the closure of the Scheme were allowed to continue without any break and they were regularized w.e.f. 28.02.2012 vide order dtd.26.06.2013 under Annexure-6-Series, Petitioners have got no further
Decision
grievance as made in the writ petition. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that in terms of the Resolution issued by the Government-Opposite Party No.1 vide Resolution No.27021 dtd.03.10.2000 under Annexure-1, Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks were engaged in non-DPEP Districts. Similarly, in terms of the Resolution issued by the self-same Government- Opposite Party No.1 vide Resolution No.27002 dtd.03.10.2000 under Annexure-2, the present Petitioners were engaged as Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks in 8 non-DPEP Districts. Though this Page 6 of 8 // 7 // Court finds that the method of selection in respect of the Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks in terms of the resolution issued under Annexure-1 and the Resolution issued under Annexure-2 is little bit different, but both the group of Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks were engaged in terms of similar nature of resolution with similar purpose so issued under Annexures-1 and 2. 6.1. It is also found that even though Petitioners were engaged in Non-DPEP Districts and were allowed to continue under a project so funded by the Central Government, but after closure of the scheme w.e.f. 30.06.2003, Petitioners though could have been disengaged, but were all allowed to continue as before without any break in engagement on the face of the decision taken by the Government on 02.07.2003 under Annexure-9. 6.2. Since the Petitioners as well as the other groups of Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks engaged in terms of the Resolution issued under Annexure-1 were so engaged in view of similar decision taken by the Government- Opposite Party No.1 under Annexures-1 and 2 and they were all allowed to continue without any break in engagement, as per the considered view of this Court Petitioners’ claim to get the benefit of regularization w.e.f. 01.04.2008 needs a favourable consideration but on notional basis. This Court accordingly directs Opposite Party No.1 to take a fresh decision with regard to the Page 7 of 8 // 8 // claim of the Petitioners to get benefit of regularization w.e.f. 01.04.2008 on notional basis only. Such a fresh decision be taken within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to Petitioner No.1 only. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 08-Apr-2024 11:22:26 Page 8 of 8