TARUNAKANTI SETHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Admit.

(2.) THE petitioner assails her disengagement form the post of Swechhasebi Sikhya Sahayak by the Collector, Bhadrak.

(3.) THE State Government on principle decided to engage Sikhya Sahayak, hereinafter referred to as the 'SS' for brevity, as against vacancies of Primary School Teachers on contractual basis. Such SSs were to be regularized in due course of their employment on successfully completion of 6 years of service. In pursuance of such decision, an advertisement was issued on 14.10.2006 to engage SS through out the State by the Director, OPEPA, Bhubaneswar. As per the resolution of the Government and the advertisement, untrained ST/SC candidates having +2 qualifications should also be eligible to apply and could also be engaged in absence of trained candidates. The petitioner claims that he has passed +2 Examination and hence she applied for appointment as Sikhya Sahayak for Bhadrak Block under Bhadrak District. Since there is no adequate number of S.C. Candidates, the applicant was selected as Sikhya Sahayak and engagement order was issued in her favour on 31.12.2007. She joined on 2.1.2008 in Saragadia U.G.M.E. School, Saragadia. Her selection was made only on the basis of marks secured in the qualifying examination, i.e., +2 Examination. While the petitioner was so continuing, she was directed to remain present before the opposite party No. 4, i.e., District Project Coordinator, S.S.A. Bhadrak for verification of her original certificates. She remained present with all her original certificate. On such verification, no infirmity or irregularity was detected nor anything was communicated to her. However, on 26.11.2008 her service was terminated along with some others on the ground that the average percentage of marks of the petitioner has come down below the minimum requirement, after verification. Petitioner claims that, as per the Government Policy resolution, no minimum required percentage was fixed by the State Government for selection of Sikhya Sahayak. She claims that she has secured 492 marks out of total 1000 in +2 Examination. On receipt of such order she approached the Collector, Bhadrak by filing a representation date 5.12.2008. She approached this Court by fiing Writ Petition (C) No. 18920 of 2008, which was disposed of by this Court on 20.1.2009 with a direction to consider her representation within a stipulated time. In response thereto, the Collector took up the case on 29.5.2009 and he rejected the claims of the petitioner. Petitioner, therefore, submits that the disengagement order and the order rejecting her representation, i.e., Annexure -8 and 9, respectively, be quashed and she be reengaged as Sikhya Sahayak.