SANGHAMITRA PATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the action of the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Balasore-opposite party No. 3 in rejecting her application for engagement as Gana Sikhyak in contravention of the guidelines issued under EGS/SSA. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was selected by the Village Education Committee having requisite qualification (+2 Arts) for engagement as an Education Volunteer in respect of Khasagadia E.G.S. Centre under Attampur Grama Panchayat, Soro Block in the district of Balasore on 16.10.2007. She joined as Education Volunteer on 17.10.2007. From the date of her joining, she is continuing and discharging her duties to the satisfaction of the authorities. However, after some days, the State Government has decided to up-grade the E.G.S. Centres to regular Schools and the Education Volunteers engaged in such E.G.S. Centres were disengaged and are facing the consequences of disengagement in the process. Taking into consideration the problem of the Education Volunteers under the Education Guarantee Scheme under Sarva Sikhya Abhijan, the Government decided to rehabilitate those Education Volunteers as Gana Sikhyak and passed a resolution on 16.2.2008. As per the said resolution, the disengaged Education Volunteers, who are untrained having minimum qualification of Matric 10th (H.S.C.E.)/+2 will be engaged as Gana Sikhyak with a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 1750/- per month. Since the petitioner is coming within the purview of the said resolution, the has prayed for engagement as Gana Sikhyak under rehabilitation . As the authority did not take into consideration her case, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 2703 of 2011 before this Court, which was disposed of on 10th February, 2011 with a direction to the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Balasore - opposite party No. 3 to consider and dispute of her representation within a period of three months.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though similarly placed persons have already been engaged as Gana Sikhyak, the case of the petitioner was not considered and the opposite party No. 3 passed the impugned order on 24.3.2011 without application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the order is liable to be quashed. He further submitted that the petitioner was duly selected by the Village Education Committee as per the Scheme in EGS and AIE under Sarba Sikhya Abhijan and the guidelines issued for selection of Education Volunteers having requisite qualification. The Block Resource Centre Coordinator, Sarva Sikhya Abhijan, Soro Block after thorough inquiry also submitted a report on 3.6.2010 (Annexure-3) and he in his report confirms the engagement of the petitioner as Education Volunteer on 16.10.2007 and the petitioner joined on 17.10.2007 and has been continuing as such and discharging her duty sincerely. However, due to lack of knowledge, the Village Education Committee did not send all the records for approval of the petitioner's engagement to the District Project Director, Balasore. Though prior to engagement of the petitioner, one Kishore Chandra Panda was working as Education Volunteer in the said Centre and he resigned from his post in April, 2007, the District Project Co-ordinator on 28th August, 2010 written a letter to the Village Education Committee for engagement of Education Volunteer in the vacancy caused due to resignation of Sri Panda. Accordingly, Village Education Committee selected the petitioner and passed the resolution for engagement of the petitioner on 16.10.2007. Therefore, the opposite party should not have rejected the representation of the petitioner.

(3.) Learned Additional Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department submitted that since the petitioner's engagement was not approved by the opposite party No. 3, rightly the case of the petitioner was rejected and the opposite party No. 3 has passed a reasoned order and, therefore, interference with the said order is not warranted.