NARENDRA PUHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writs have been clubbed together and are disposed of by this common order as the question of law involved in all these petitions is the same and the order dated 22.1.2010 pertaining to disengagement of all the petitioners from, the post of Shiksha Sahayak under challenge is similar in nature.

(2.) Petitioners were working as Non-Formal Facilitators under Bhadrak-II, Education district and had two years of experience till the date of closure of the scheme i.e. 31.03.2001. Advertisement dated 14.10.2006 was issued by the Government for filling up the posts of Sikhya Sahayak in district Bhadrak. In pursuance of the said advertisement, petitioners applied for appointment as Sikhya Sahayak. However, selection could not be completed for Bhadrak district in view of pendency of Writ Petition (C) No.14981 of 2006 along with batch of other cases in which validity of the advertisement and process of selection were challenged. The said cases were disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 23.08.2007. Thereafter, the selection process was completed. Petitioners were selected in accordance with their merits and past experience as Non-Formal Facilitators in the third phase of selection. The Department called for a report from the District Inspector of Schools, Bhadrak-II to verify correctness of the experience claimed by the petitioners as Non-Formal Facilitators. After verification of authenticity of the said experience, petitioners were called for verification of their original records on 26.04.2009. After finding their records correct, they were engaged as Sikhya Sahayak vide order dated 13.05.2008. Consequently, petitioners joined as Sikhya Sahayak in respective schools where they were so appointed on 15.05.2008. While continuing in service, petitioners were once again called upon by the Department vide letter dated 7.11.2008 to produce original certificates for verification on 18.11.2008 for clarification of certain doubts. Petitioners accordingly produced their original documents on 18.11.2008 in the office of the District Project Coordinator where the original records were verified. The original documents were allegedly retained by the Department and were not returned back to the petitioners despite request. In the said verification, about eight to ten candidates faced termination because of certain discrepancies found in their certificates and mark sheets. No irregularities or discrepancies were found in the ; documents of the petitioners and therefore, they continued in their jobs. However, petitioners received another notice on 25.02.2009 from the Department wherein they were called upon to produce their original documents in the office of District Project Coordinator for verification. Petitioners could not produce the said documents on the date fixed. Therefore, they were again called upon by the Department vide letter dated 19.03.2009 to submit their original documents and on failure to produce the same, they would be disengaged. Petitioners accordingly appeared before the District Project Coordinator informing him that ,the original certificates and documents were already with them, but the respondents insisted upon the petitioners for production of original Non-Formal Facilitator appointment order and resignation order disbelieving their statements. After obtaining information from the office of District Project Coordinator under Right to Information Act (hereinafter referred as 'RTI' petitioners submitted their reply to the show-cause notice. The Department did not accept their reply and issued disengagement order dated 22.01.2010 against the petitioners. Hence this petition.

(3.) Respondents in the counter affidavit filed through respondent No.4 have averred that the petitioners were given benefit of additional marks meant for NFE's, as per the advertisement, on the basis of letter of the District Inspector of Schools, Bhadrak-II bearing No.2204 dated 21.04.2008 produced by the petitioners and accepting that all the petitioners had worked as NFEs for the period mentioned against their respective names, they were engaged. However, one Zakhir Ali lied a Writ being W.P.(C) No. 15774 of 2008 seeking his engagement as Sikhya Sahayak on the ground that candidates securing less marks than him obtained engagements and in the said Writ this Court by its order dated 31.10.2008 while disposing of the said writ gave liberty to Zakir Ali to file a representation before the Collector-cum-CEO, Zilla Parishad, Bhadrak. It is further averred that Zakir Alii filed a representation before Collector, Bhadrak as directed by this Court. With the representation, produced letter No.23 dated 3.1.2009 issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools (DIS), intimating that names of the petitioners did not find place in NFE records available in the office. On receipt of this letter, District Project Coordinator, SSA, Bhadrak issued a letter dated 10.06.2009 to Deputy Inspector of Schools. Bhadrak-II to clarify the real position regarding experience of the petitioners and other similarly placed candidates Md as to whether they had indeed worked as NFEs till 31.03.2001 Since the same was contradictory to the earlier dated 21.04.2008 issued by District Inspector of Schools, Bhadrak-II wherein it was stated that petitioners worked as NFE till 31.03.2011. It is also averred that in response to the said letter, Deputy Inspector of Schools, Bhadrak-II Knitted his written reply dated 11.06.2009 stating that letter dated 21.04.2008 was never issued by the office of District Inspector of Schools, Bhadrak-II and that the said letter was fake and forgery one. The petitioners were issued show cause notice dated 19.03.2009 directing them to produce their original documents in proof of their experience as NFE till 31.03.2001, but they failed to produce the documents as directed and filed respective Writ Petitions. In the said Writs, a direction was given to the petitioners to submit their original documents before the District Project Coordinator. Since petitioners failed to produce their original documents as directed, another show cause notice dated 1.12.2009 was issued by the District Project Coordinator calling upon them to produce all original documents on 8.12.2009. However, petitioners did not produce the documents as directed and since their reply was not found convincing, they were served with disengagement order dated 22.1.2010.