OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To claim appointment as Shiksa Sahayogi with Rajiv Gandhi Swarn Jayanti Pathshala, Gram Panchayat-Kukanwali and also to challenge to the appointment of respondent No. 10 as Shiksha Sahayogi, this petition for writ is preferred.

(2.) In brief facts of the case are that a scheme was introduced by the Government of Rajasthan to have primary schools in rural area and for that purpose Shiksha Sahayogis were required to be employed. As per the scheme the minimum qualification to be employed as Shiksha Sahayogi was that the incumbent must be possessing senior secondary/higher secondary school examination certificate and a preference was available to the persons having requisite training in education. By the scheme aforesaid, it was also made clear that the qualification of Senior Secondary/Higher Secondary was subject to the relaxation up to the the qualification of 8th standard for the schools in remote tribal or arid areas.

(3.) The Gram SabhaKukanwali conducted process of selection for appointment of Shiksha Sahayogi on 15.5.1999 and in the select list name of the respondent No. 10 was at S. No. l and the petitioner was placed at S. No. 2. At the first instance appointment was given to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No. 10, but the petitioner was not sent for requisite training by the respondents even by utilizing his services for a period of about 11 months. The petitioner made various representations to the respondents and also other competent authorities to send him for training and also to employ him as Shiksha Sahayogi in place of respondent No. 10. It is also relevant to note that no payment of salary was made to the petitioner for the period his services were utilized as Shiksha Sahayogi. Acting upon the representation submitted by the petitioner an inquiry was conducted by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Kuchaman City, wherein a finding was given that appointment of respondent No. 10 was erroneously made and services of the petitioner were utilized from 7.7.1999 to 8.9.2000 and for that period no wages were paid to him. Despite such inquiry and findings no action was taken. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner while claiming the relief prayed for that the respondent No. 10 is son of the then Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat - Kukanwali, and therefore, appointment was accorded to him for extraneous consideration. The respondent No. 10 as a matter of fact, is not even eligible to be employed with as Shiksha Sahayogi being lacking qualification.