DHANANJAY CHARAN DEY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are having Matric CT, +2 CT and Trained Graduate qualification, have filed this writ petition challenging the decision taken by the State Government in the resolution no. 22445 dated 17.11.2011, wherein decision was taken to absorb the eligible Trained Gana Sikshyaks as Sikshya Sahayaks, without taking into consideration the Government resolution no. 3368 dated 16.02.2008 and the proceeding of the meeting held on 29.11.2010 under the Chairmanship of the Hon'ble Minister, School and Mass Education Department, as a result of which the period of service rendered by the petitioners as Gana Sikshyak is not being taken into account for the purpose of extending the benefit of Career Advancement Policy, i.e. to be engaged as Junior Teacher on completion of 3 years of service as Sikshya Sahayak and 3 years thereafter as Primary School Teacher.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioners are all trained persons and were initially engaged as Education Volunteer under Education Guarantee Scheme. After abolition of such scheme, they were rehabilitated as Gana Sikshyak in the year 2008 under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (S.S.A.), in view of resolution of the State Government dated 16.02.2008 under Annexure-2. As per Clause-5 of the said resolution, it was stated that Gana Sikshyaks will be engaged against the existing created vacancies of Sikshya Sahayaks and their consolidated remuneration etc. will be borne out of S.S.A. budget, and they will be engaged in the Government Primary Schools. As per Clause-11, Gana Sikshyaks will continue to avail the benefits in the process of selection for engagement of Sikshya Sahayak, pursuant to Office Order No. 23845/SME dated 04.12.2007 of the Government in School and Mass Education Department. Accordingly, the petitioners were engaged as Gana Sikshyaks on 03.05.2008 and posted at different primary Schools.

(3.) Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners empathically submitted before this Court that the petitioners, who are Matric CT, +2 CT as well as Trained Graduation qualification, had been absorbed as Gana Sikshyaks on 03.05.2008. On completion of 3 years, they were to be treated as Junior Teacher w.e.f. 03.05.2011 and as Regular Teacher w.e.f. 03.05.2014 after completion of 3 years thereafter. But, pursuant to resolution dated 17.11.2011, when they were absorbed as Sikhya Sahayaks, the services rendered by them for the period from 03.05.2008 to 17.11.2011 have not been taken into consideration, but by that time they would have been absorbed as Junior Teacher w.e.f. 03.05.2011, which is contrary to the decision taken in the Government guidelines dated 16.02.2008 and the decision taken by the School and Mass Education Department vide Office Order dated 04.12.2007. It is further contended that to examine the demands of Gana Sikshyaks, a Ministerial Sub-committee was constituted under the chairmanship of the Minister, Finance and Public Enterprise and on the basis of recommendations of the said Ministerial Sub-committee, the Government, after careful consideration, resolved vide resolution dated 04.12.2013 in Annexure-A/1 that Gana Sikshyaks, after completion of 6 years of continuous and satisfactory engagement, to be treated as "Senior Gana Sikshyaks". For all purpose of calculation for benefits, the beginning of the year will be from next succeeding 1st April. Whereas, the trained Gana Sikshyaks with +2 or above academic qualification to be treated as Zilla Parishad Grade-II Teacher, after completion of 6 years of continuous and satisfactory service or after 3 years from completion of training whichever is later. The said resolution dated 04.12.2013 was challenged before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1758 of 2014 (which was filed by one Santosh Kumar Nahak) and other similar batch of matters. The tribunal, vide order dated 10.03.2015, directed the State Government to issue appropriate orders modifying the order dated 04.12.2013, in compliance of which the resolution dated 04.12.2013 was withdrawn, pursuant to resolution dated 25.02.2016. As a consequence thereof, the Department Resolution no. 3358 dated 16.02.2008 and Resolution nos. 22445 and 224450 dated 17.11.2011, which were repealed, vide clause-20 of the resolution dated 04.12.2013, were revived. As a result, the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit pursuant to resolution dated 16.02.2008. It is further contended that the benefit which was extended to the petitioners, pursuant to the decision taken by the School and Mass Education Department vide Office order dated 04.02.2007 and consequential resolution passed by the Government dated 16.02.2008, cannot and could not have been curtailed by subsequent resolution dated 17.11.2011, which is unreasonable, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law.