AMAR BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.12.2006 (Annexure P-3) by which it is intimated to the petitioner that after due consideration, he is not found fit to be absorbed and continued on the post of Shiksha Karmi. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that a writ petition was filed before this Court being W.P. No.2525/2006 against the respondents seeking a direction to pass appropriate orders in respect of the petitioner, who was appointed as Guruji in the year 1983 and who remained working up to 2002. Said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the claim of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders within a period of 90 days. Since the representation was not being considered, the petitioner was required to file a contempt petition before this Court and when notices of contempt petition were issued to the respondent, order dated 23.12.2006 was passed rejecting the representation of the petitioner. It is contended that the order impugned is per se illegal as no reasons have been assigned in the said order.

(2.) THOUGH this Court has issued notices to the respondent and all of them are served, yet no response has been filed. From the perusal of order dated 23.12.2006, it is clear that only this much was said that WRIT PETITION the State Government has closed the non formal education scheme in the year 2000 and those, who were appointed as Guruji in the said scheme, were considered to be continued in the new scheme or as a Teacher in the Education Guarantee Scheme. The case of the petitioner was considered by a Committee duly constituted at District Level but since the petitioner was not found fit as per the norms of E.G.S., his name was not recommended to the State Education Center. It is contended that because of this reason, the petitioner was not treated as a Guruji in the E.G.S. Scheme. This being so, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. Nothing has been indicated in the order as to what were the norms fixed by the E.G.S., how the Committee was constituted at District level which has considered the case of the petitioner and whether the similar consideration was done in respect of many other persons appointed along with the petitioner or not. This all was required to be indicated in the order as the representation of the petitioner was to be decided in the lawful manner and not in arbitrary manner as has been reflected in the order.