(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court impugning the speaking order passed by the District Education Officer (EE)-cum- District Project Director, Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan Authority, Sangrur (Annexure P-15), vide which the claim of the petitioner stands rejected.
(2.) IT is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Education Volunteer under the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan on 01.01.2009. She continued as such when her services were terminated on 31.08.2009. Petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No. 1399 of 2012, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2012 by directing respondent No. 4- District Education Officer (Elementary Education) Sangrur to consider the representation of the petitioner which she had submitted asserting that persons, who were appointed subsequent to the petitioner, have been retained whereas she has been relieved from the service, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Counsel contends that the action of the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner vide the impugned order is not in consonance with law as persons, who were appointed subsequent to the petitioner, have been retained whereas the petitioner has been relieved. The ground projected while rejecting the claim that the appointment of the petitioner was a stop gap arrangement and, therefore, she has been relieved, cannot be sustained. His further contention is that the other ground with regard to the eligibility conditions as per the Right to Education Act, 2009 specified therein cannot be pressed into service as the claim of the petitioner is to be considered under the instructions under which she had been appointed. He, accordingly, contends that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
(3.) THE facts are not in dispute and, therefore, need not to be repeated again. The reasons assigned by the respondents for rejecting the claim of the petitioner are mentioned in the said order, which read as follows:-