MANOJ KUMAR JENA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Education Volunteer and posted in Sanabrahmapur EGS Centre duly approved by OPEPA and selected by the District Selection Committee through the District Project Coordinator (DPC), Balasore by order dtd. 12/4/2007. The petitioner claims to be a graduate with extra qualification of Ratna in Hindi. He discharged duties in Sanabrahmapur EGS Centre duly signing in the attendance registers which were countersigned by the EGS committee. While he was continuing as such, the government of Odisha took a policy decision to abolish the EGS scheme under Sarva Shikhya Abhiyan and accordingly a letter of disengagement was issued to each Education Volunteer on 28/3/2008. After such abolition of the scheme, the Government issued a resolution on 16/2/2008 for engagement of the retrenched Education Volunteers as Gana Shikhyaks. The Block Resource Centre Coordinator, (BRCC), Balasore by letter dtd. 4/4/2008 instructed all District Inspectors of Schools and Block Development Officers to publish a draft merit list of Education Volunteers for their rehabilitation as Gana Shikhyaks. Pursuant to such letter a gradation merit list was prepared in which the petitioner's name found place at serial number 69. The Sanabrahmapur EGS Centre was being managed by an NGO named SPEED. By letter dtd. 23/4/2008 the Managing Director of SPEED requested the BRCC to enlist the name of the petitioner and accordingly by letter dtd. 6/5/2008, BRCC recommended the name of the petitioner for enlistment to the DPC Balasore for inclusion in the list of Gana Shikhyak. Since such recommendation was not acted upon, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 14791 of 2012 which was disposed of on 1/10/2012 with a direction to the Collector to look into the grievance of the petitioner as per resolution dtd. 16/2/2008. However, the Collector, Balasore, by order dtd. 22/12/2012 rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that he was not engaged as Education Volunteer in Sanabrahmapur EGS. Challenging the order of the Collector, the petitioner again approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 22964 of 2013 which was disposed of on 31/7/2017 directing the Collector to take into account the incumbency of the petitioner as an Education Volunteer and original scheme as per the report of BRCC dtd. 22/1/2009. The Collector, without considering the facts on record and the report of BRCC rejected the claim of the petitioner again by order dtd. 20/9/2017, which is impugned in the present writ application. It is stated that despite clear evidence that the roll strength of the EGS Centre in question was more than 40 which justified engagement of the second volunteer, the Collector mechanically rejected the claim of the petitioner without considering the said evidence. Being thus aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court again in the present writ application seeking the following relief:

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the District Project Coordinator (DPC), SSA, Balasore (opposite party No. 3). It is stated that the EGS Centre at Sanabrahmapur was managed by the NGO SPEED in which one Krushna Chandra Behera was working as Education Volunteer with effect from 16/6/2003 against the role strength of 33. The engagement of the petitioner in the said centre against the said forces was not admissible as per the prevailing rules and such appointment was also not approved by the competent authority. Therefore, he is not eligible to be rehabilitated as Gana Shikhyak on the strength of the government resolution dtd. 16/2/2008. Since the EGS Centre had roll strength below 40, the engagement of second Education Volunteer is not justified and the petitioner has made a claim only to derive the benefit of engagement as Gana Shikhyak. The Collector, Balasore after verifying the relevant records and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner rightly rejected his claim for engagement as Gana Shikyak.

(3.) The petitioner filed an additional affidavit disputing the averments of the counter filed by opposite party No.3. It is specifically stated that on enquiry by the DPC Balasore on 1/12/2008, the BRCC, Soro vide report dtd. 22/1/2009 intimated that the petitioner was engaged as second Education Volunteer due to increase of roll strength by Government Resolution dtd. 10/4/2003 and approved by letter dtd. 20/5/2003 in which he joined on 12/4/2007 and continued up to 31/3/2008. It is therefore clear that the petitioner was engaged as Education Volunteer and hence deserves to be rehabilitated as Gana Shikhyak as per government resolution.