LAWS(MPH)-2001-10-24

LAXMAN PRASAD RAJAK Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On October 10, 2001
LAXMAN PRASAD RAJAK Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellants aggrieved by the order dated August 1st, 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the Writ Petition No. 2206/2000 and several others similar writ petitions by a common order.

(2.) THE appellants were appointed as "gurujis" under the scheme called the "the Education Guarantee Scheme" which was framed by the Govt. of M. P. in furtherance of its constitutional obligation to provide free and compulsory education for all the children until they complete the age of 14 years. The petitioners were appointed as "gurujis" on the honorarium of Rs. 500/- per month. A committee was formed on the district level for implementation of the scheme. The State level committee was also constituted. Budget provisions and disbursement of the amount are provided in para 8. 2 of the policy.

(3.) IN the District of Tikamgarh various centres were established under "the Education Guarantee Scheme" and 400 Gurujis were appointed. The District Project Co-ordinator by his letter dated 9-9-98 informed to all the Block Education Officers and Block Project Co-ordinators of the centres/blocks in the District of Tikamgarh that no further centre under "the Education Guarantee Scheme" be opened without prior approval of the District Project Office. It further directed that in the centres which are already established further appointments of Gurujis be not made without prior approval of the District Project Office. Another letter dated 5-2-1999 was issued by the District Project Co-ordinator to all the Block Education Officers and Block Project Co-ordinators stating that in violation of the instructions certain appointments were made and centres were opened. Even after this communication, appointments were made in flagrant violation of the directions. The District Project Director ordered cancellation of such appointments. The petitioners were appointed after 5-2-99. Their appointments were cancelled; hence they preferred the writ petitions before the Single Judge which have been dismissed.