BISWARANJAN DASH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in both the writ applications, who are working as Non-Formal Education Facilitators at different centres have approached this Court for quashing Annexure-6, the letter of the Deputy Director (Academic), T. E. and SCERT, Orissa dated 21-11-94 and the Rules for admission to the C. T. course of the Government Secondary Training Schools as contained in the prospectus in, Annexure-7 prescribing the minimum eligibility of at least 40% of marks in the High School Certificate Examination excluding marks in extra optional subject, apart from other conditions as laid therein.Both the writ applications involve identical question of law and facts and therefore are heard and disposed of together.

(2.) The petitioners' claim that they were appointed as Non-Formal Education Facilitators in different centres by the District Inspector of Schools provisionally on ad hoc basis with a monthly remuneration of Rs. 105/-. On the date of the appointment, the petitioners were Matriculates having passed the High School Certificate Examination from Board of Secondary Education, Orissa sometimes in December, 1988 and continuing as such till date, without any break. It is stated that the Rules for admission to C.T. course of the Government Secondary Schools of Orissa during the period 1994-95 and prior to that as per the prospectus for admission of C.T. course in respect of untrained in service teachers, untrained S.C./ S.T. candidates Sikhya Karmi and Non Formal Education Facilitators were the same. The selection of those categories of candidates to undergo C.T. training course was made solely on the basis of length of service in accordance with the prospectus for the year 1994-95. In the meantime, the opposite party No. 1 formulated a principle to extend training facility to the Non-Formal Education Facilitators to undergo C.T. training after 47-87 and it was decided that along with the length of service, the Non-Formal Education Facilitators shall have to fulfil some other conditions. The Director, Teachers Education and SCERT, Orissa intimated the Circle Inspector of Schools, Dhenkanal vide letter No. 10519 dated 31-10-94 indicating the guidelines for selection of Non-Formal Education Facilitators/Supervisors for admission to C.T. courses during 1994-95, wherein there were no stipulation of minimum qualifying marks which would be the basis for selection into C.T. course of Secondary Training Schools. A copy of the letter is Annexure-4. The Circle Inspector of Schools vide letter No. 11912 dated 27-10-94 intimated all concerned, the decision of the High Court in O.J.C. No. 4973 of 1992 that the persons who were appointed after 4-6-87 were also eligible to undergo C.T. training on the basis of seniority to be drawn up as per the date of engagement and eligibility, subject to availability of seats, against reserved quota for such category of candidates.

(3.) The petitioners alleged that the Director, Teachers Education and SCERT, Orissa vide letter No. 11017 dated 21-11-94 intimated all the. Inspectors of Schools of the State, that the criteria of selection of Non-Formal Education Facilitators to undergo C.T. training would be a minimum of 40% of marks in the H.S.C. Examination along with length of service. The petitioners assert that following this letter, the prospectus for C.T. course have been drawn up in the year 1995-96, which also stipulates that a candidate has to secure 40% of marks excluding extra optional subjects in H.S.C. Examination as the minimum eligibility criteria for C.T. training. It is stated that such stipulations and fixing up of different yardstick for admission to the C.T. course for the petitioners and all concerned, is illegal, arbitrary and high handed action of opposite party No. 2 and contrary to the letter dated 26-9-94 in Annexure-3. The petitioners having secured less than 40% of marks in the High School Certificate Examination, have not been selected whereas Facilitators who are much juniors to the petitioners have been selected for the training only because they have secured 40% of marks at the High School Certificate Examination. It is alleged that the Principle adopted by the authorities are only in respect of Non-Formal Education Facilitators -and not for other candidates is discriminatory, which is evident from Paragraph 3(1) of the prospectus for the year 199596. The petitioners are drawing Rs. 105/- per month as against the emolument of Rupees 2,000/- for in-service teachers, Rs. 400/- for Sikhya Karmies etc. It is the case of the petitioners that in accordance with the yearstick 1994-95, the petitioners were eligible for admission but because of the principle adopted for the year 1995-96 in Annexures 6 and 7, they are made to suffer for no fault of theirs. The prayer of the petitioners thus is that the letter of the Deputy Director (Academic) T.E. and S.E.R.T. dated 21-11-94 in Annexure-6 and the prospectus for admission to the C.T. course for Government Secondary Training Schools for 1995-96 are liable to be quashed is being illegal and discriminatory.