The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No. 29317 of 2024 (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Annapurna Parida & Others ...… Petitioners --------------- -Versus- Union of India & Others _____________________________________________ .... Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Mohanty, Advocate, For Opp. Party : Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, Additional Government Advocate for the State. Mr. N. Samal, Advocate for Opp. Party No. 5 _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 25th April, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has filed this writ application with the following prayer; “Under the above premises it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this Writ application and further be pleased to direct the Opp. Parties No-3, 6 & 7 for Page 1 of 10 carry out the letter dtd. 15.10.2024 in relating to the order dtd. 23.09.2024 passed in WPC No-23394 of 2024 as of Annexure-12 Ganasikhyak/ Sikhya Sahayak in the light of the Govt. Resolution dtd. 16.02.2008 and 14.07.2013 under annexure-1 series in the interest of justice. engagement for And pass any other order/orders which your lordship deem fit and proper. And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 2. The petitioners claim to have been working as Education Volunteer in different EGS centres after closure of the EGS Scheme, the State Project Director, OPEPA issued advertisement on 13.07.2009 inviting applications from experienced NGOs to run Bridge Course Centers under SSA. Accordingly, an NGO namely United Samiti Action was selected and, vide letter dated 11.03.2010, was permitted to run 350 of Non-Resident Bridge Course (NRBC) centers at Rajnagar/Pattamundai Block in the district of Kendrapara for drop-out children of the age group of 16 to 40. The petitioners were appointed as AIE (Education Volunteer) in different NRBC centers. On different dates in April 2010, after Page 2 of 10 undergoing due process of selection, the centers were closed beginning from 20.04.2011. The District Inspector of Schools, Pattamundai, by letter dated 04.08.2012 addressed to the Director, Elementary Education, Odisha, stated that the Education Volunteers/Resource Persons of the NRBC centers, who have been disengaged, have not got other engagement. Prior to the engagement of the petitioners, the Government, vide resolution dated 16.02.2008, provided an avenue of re-engagement of disengaged Education Volunteers under EGS/AIE Scheme as Ganasikhyaks. After closure of the 350 NRBC centers, the petitioners submitted representations to the Secretary, Department of School & Mass Education and the Collector, Kendrapara to extend the benefit of the aforementioned resolution to them, but no action was taken. It is stated that the persons working in similar schemes, such as, in adolescent girls’ camp under AIE Scheme have been held equal to Education Volunteers under EGS scheme and directed to be engaged as Ganasikhyak/Sikhya Sahayak as per orders of this Court in different writ Page 3 of 10 applications. Further, in a case filed by several similarly placed persons, namely, W.P.(C). No. 1716 of 2012 (Rashmi Rekha Patra Vrs. State of Odisha and batch), this Court, by judgment dated 14.12.2012 held that the Education Volunteers working in EGS centers as well as AIE centers are same and there is no reason to deny the benefit of the resolution dated 16.02.2008 to the latter. The petitioners therein were thereafter engaged as Ganasikhyaks /Sikhya Sahayak.
Legal Reasoning
3. The present petitioners had approached this Court in W.P.(C). No. 23394 of 2024 which was disposed of by order dated 23.09.2024 directing the Block Education Officer, Pattamundai to consider and dispose the representation, which had already been submitted by the petitioners, by passing a reasoned order. Persuant to that order, office of the Director, Elementary Education, vide letter dated 15.10.2024, requested the BEO, Pattamundai to dispose of the representation, as directed by this Court. On such facts, the writ application was filed with the prayer, as already stated hereinbefore. Page 4 of 10 4. During pendency of the writ application, the petitioners brought on record order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the Block Education Officer, Pattamundai rejecting their representation. 5. The stand of the State, as reflected in the counter affidavit filed by the District Education Officer, is that the claim of the petitioners is grossly barred by limitation, being a stale claim, as they had never agitated the same before the higher authorities earlier. Simply by approaching this Court in the earlier writ application, they were favoured with an order directing disposal of the representation, which cannot take effect on the ground of delay on their part. On merits, it is stated that there are essential differences between Education Volunteers engaged under the Education Guarantee Scheme and those engaged as such under the AIE scheme. While the EGS centres were upgraded to primary schools, no such step was taken in respect of the NRBC. AIE centres were established for the specified period for teaching of specific age group of children who are never enrolled or who are dropped out. The Page 5 of 10 petitioners cannot be equated with the Education Volunteers of EGS centres and as such, they do not come within the purview of the Government resolution dated 16.02.2008. 6. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner inter alia referring to the various orders passed by this Court in different writ applications directing the authorities to engage the Education Volunteers under AIE Scheme as Ganasikhyaks by holding that both are similar. The relevant provisions of the hand book for EGS and AIE Schemes have also been referred to. 7. Heard Mr. A.K.Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.Behera, learned AGA for the State. 8. There being no dispute as regards the facts relating to engagement of the petitioners has NRBC Education Volunteers/Resource Persons being appointed by the NGO United Action Samiti, the details thereof are not required to be referred to, save and except noticing that all of them were disengaged after closure of the scheme in the year 2011/2012. The petitioners have heavily banked upon the judgment of this Court passed in the Page 6 of 10 case of Rashmi Rekha Patra (supra), wherein direction was issued to the authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioners therein for engagement as Ganasikhyak, as per resolution dated 16.02.2008, by holding that there is no essential difference between the EGS Scheme and AIE Scheme. Similar orders have also been passed by this Court in other writ applications. Though the petitioner’s claim to have submitted several representations addressed to the authorities for consideration of their case for engagement as Ganasikhyaks, not a single such representation is placed on record. The petitioners appear to have approached this Court for the first time in the year 2022 by filing W.P.(C). No. 34256 of 2022. This Court passed an order on consent of the parties on 14.12.2022 directing the concerned authority to take a decision on the representations filed by the petitioners. Subsequently, the petitioners again approached this Court in W.P.(C). No. 23394 of 2024 which was disposed of by order dated 23.09.2024, taking note of the fact that the representation dated 15.07.2023 was pending Page 7 of 10 before the Block Education Officer, with direction to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order. Pursuant to such order, the BEO has rejected the claim of the representation of the petitioners as per order dated 07.12.2024. Perusal of the order of rejection reveals that the claim of the petitioners has been rejected mainly on two grounds, namely, they do not stand on the same AEC footing as disengaged Education Volunteers under the EGS Scheme, but were engaged under AEC Centres as Education Volunteers for NRBC centres and secondly, their claim is stale having been raised belatedly. 9. As already stated, nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner to show that they had staked claim for being engaged as Ganasikhyak after their disengagement as EGS of NRBC Centres. Several other petitioners working under AIE Scheme had approached this Court and obtained favourable orders. Said orders were passed on 14.12.2012 in the case of Rashmi Rekha Patra and on 08.02.2016 in the case of Lily Acharya and others (W.P.(C). No. 26 of 2014), 31.08.2016 in W.P.(C). Page 8 of 10 No. 14764 of 2016, and on 20.02.2020 passed in W.P.(C). No. 19680 of 2018 etc. The cases filed subsequent to Rashmi Rekha Patra were disposed of in terms of the order passed therein. The petitioners slept over the matter for all these years and approached this Court for the first time in the year 2022, which is almost 10 years after passing of the judgment in Rashmi Rekha Patra. In the earlier writ applications filed by the petitioners, this Court had no occasion to examine the merits of their claim, as, noting that the concerned authority was in seisin over the matter, the direction was issued to take a decision at the first instance. As already stated, the petitioners were disengaged way back in the year 2011-12. Instead of agitating their grievances before the concerned authorities or before this Court, as other persons did, the petitioners continued to sleep over the matter and woke up from their slumber only in the year 2022. It is obvious that their belated claim was actuated by the favourable judgment passed in Rashmi Rekha Patra’s case followed in other cases. This makes Page 9 of 10 the petitioners fence-sitters disentitling them thereby to the claim raised by them.
Decision
10. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds nothing wrong in the rejection of representation of the petitioners by the Block Education Officer so as to be persuaded to interfere. To reiterate, the petitioners having raised a stale claim and being fence-sitters, are not entitled to the relief claimed in the writ application. Resultantly, the writ application is held to be devoid of merit and is therefore, dismissed. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Deepak Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 29-Apr-2025 13:06:27 Page 10 of 10