PREMANANDA SARANGI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS were engaged as Non Formal Instructors on different dates and they continued as such during prevalent of the scheme of Non -Formal Education. It is the admitted position on record that the said scheme is no more functional and operative. On the other hand, a new scheme has been adopted by the State Government in collaboration with the Union Government for universalisation of the elementary education and that scheme is known as 'Swechhasebi Sikhya Sahayak Scheme.' Annexure -5 is a copy of that resolution providing the details of the scheme including the eligibility criteria. At paragraph 4.7 in Annexure -5 it has been provided that : - -

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of the Court to both the schemes, states that the persons who had been engaged in the N. F. E. Scheme in the meantime have been age barred or otherwise not capable of competing with the eligible candidates as provided in Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayak Scheme and therefore they shall face the discrimination and unequal treatment because, of the above quoted provision in paragraph 4.7 of the Scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that either the petitioner be regularised in the new scheme or else some weightage be given at the time of selection keeping in view their past experience in N. F. E. Scheme.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for both the parties and going through the schemes, this Court finds that though both the schemes are not same, but the purpose behind both the schemes have similarities on some aspects. When Articles 14 and 16 respectively guarantee equality before law and equality of opportunity in matters of employment under the State, opportunity to compete to all eligible persons by the date of coming into force the Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayak Scheme cannot be regarded as unconstitutional or per se illegal. On the other hand giving the N. F. E. Instructors employment as Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayak by excluding others having requisite qualification and eligibility shall be in utter violation of the above noted provision of law. See the case of Ashok Kumar and others v. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and others, reported in .