ORDER :

1. The petitioner (Shashikala Tiwari) is aggrieved by rejection of her request for regularization; her writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge - an order affirmed by the Division Bench.

2. The necessary facts are that the petitioner was appointed as “Second Guruji”, i.e. teacher, on 18.3.2002 in Shiksha Guarantee School at Baghelan Tola, Kapsa. The appointment letter was issued by the Gram Panchayat Sarpanch. The petitioner claims that she has worked in the capacity of the second Guruji from the time when she was given the initial assignment.

3. Later, based upon representations made by her and certain inter se correspondence exchanged departmentally by the State, she approached the High Court complaining willful inaction on the part of the State, seeking directions for her regularization as well as payment of regular salary. The petitioner alleged that she was being paid a token honorarium all the while.

4. The Single Judge by order dated 15.7.2013 disposed of the writ petition directing authorities to consider her claim. The State on 31.8.2013, rejected her request. This led the petitioner to approach the High Court again by another writ petition (W.P. No.22440/2013).

5. After considering the record and the pleadings, the Single Judge by his order dismissed the writ petition. The writ appeal filed by the petitioner met with the same fate.

6. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the documents on the record overwhelmingly substantiate the fact that not only she was working all the while and being paid the token honorarium that she did receive, but also that crucially the State had sought verification as to whether she had, in fact, been appointed and was discharging her duties as Guruji.

7. Reliance was placed upon the District Authority’s verification report issued on 23.11.2005. Likewise, the petitioner has also relied upon the letter dated 12.6.2002, which discloses (in a chart annexed to it at serial No.67), her name and the date from which she was continuously working.

8. This Court had by an order dated 8.11.2019 required the State to place on record the documents referred to in the order of the Single Judge as well as the order of the Chief Executive Officer dated 7.6.2002, by which the petitioner was initially appointed.

9. In response, the State has filed an additional affidavit (which is an amplification of its stand reflected by it in the counter affidavit as well as in compliance of this Court’s Order dated 8.11.2019).

10. It is brought to the notice of the Court by the State that the names of 11 (eleven) such Guruji(s) were recommended for regularization but only 6 (six) of them were actually given that relief or benefit.

11. Counsel for the State has drawn the attention of the Court to the letter issued by the State Education Center on 30.10.2001 sanctioning new Education Guarantee Schools. The letter lists as many as 405 such Primary Schools and 19 Secondary Education Guarantee Schools.

12. The State’s position with regard to the consideration of the petitioner’s claim is that the approval for appointment of Guruji(s) in 6 (six) Education Guarantee Schools approved out of the proposal sent (which included the proposal in respect of 5 others) was granted.

13. According to the additional affidavit filed by the respondent-State, appointments of the 5 (five) remaining Guruji(s) were not effected because of “large distance from the Village and proposed location of Education Guarantee School and non-fulfillment of various criterions.”

14. What is evident from the facts narrated above is that the State does not dispute that the petitioner had, in fact, been appointed when she claims that she was in June, 2002. The documents on record bear out her claim that she was so appointed – the only disputed aspect here is that the State claims that the appointment was not made by it, but rather by the local Gram Panchayat Sarpanch. The State does not dispute also possibly the qualification held by her. Furthermore, th