Back
2022 Supreme(Ori) 674
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Sashikanta Mishra, J.
Manoj Kumar Jena – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 7944 of 2018 (An application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India.)
Decided On : 13-09-2022
M/s. S.B. Mohanty, S. Mohapatra, B.B. Mohapatra, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. R.N. Acharya, Standing Counsel for S & ME Dept., for the Respondent
Proper consideration of evidence and reports is essential for making decisions in matters of rehabilitation and engagement under government schemes.
Headnote:
Education Volunteer - Rehabilitation as Gana Shikhyak - 16.2.2008, 26.2.2009, 28.4.2008 - The court discussed the provisions of the government resolutions dated 16.2.2008, 26.2.2009, and 28.4.2008, which provided for the rehabilitation of disengaged Education Volunteers as Gana Shikhyaks under Sarva Shikhya Abhiyan. The court highlighted the gradation merit list, the report of the BRCC, and the recommendation of the NGO SPEED in determining the eligibility of the petitioner for rehabilitation as Gana Shikhyak.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Education Volunteer, sought rehabilitation as Gana Shikhyak after the abolition of the EGS scheme. The Collector rejected the petitioner's claim, leading to multiple court proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Collector did not consider the evidence in the proper perspective and relied on improper communication, leading to an erroneous decision.
Issues: The main issue was the eligibility of the petitioner for rehabilitation as Gana Shikhyak based on the roll strength of the EGS Centre and the government resolutions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Collector's decision was not based on a proper consideration of evidence and directed a fresh determination based on the original attendance registers and relevant reports.
Final Decision: The writ petition succeeded, and the impugned order was quashed. The Collector was directed to re-evaluate the petitioner's claim based on the evidence and pass a reasoned order within two months.
JUDGMENT
Sashikanta Mishra, J.The petitioner was initially appointed as Education Volunteer and posted in Sanabrahmapur EGS Centre duly approved by OPEPA and selected by the District Selection Committee through the District Project Coordinator (DPC), Balasore by order dated 12.04.2007.
The petitioner claims to be a graduate with extra qualification of Ratna in Hindi. He discharged duties in Sanabrahmapur EGS Centre duly signing in the attendance registers which were countersigned by the EGS committee.
While he was continuing as such, the government of Odisha took a policy decision to abolish the EGS scheme under Sarva Shikhya Abhiyan and accordingly a letter of disengagement was issued to each Education Volunteer on 28.03.2008. After such abolition of the scheme, the Government issued a resolution on 16.02.2008 for engagement of the retrenched Education Volunteers as Gana Shikhyaks. The Block Resource Centre Coordinator, (BRCC), Balasore by letter dated 04.04.2008 instructed all District Inspectors of Schools and Block Development Officers to publish a draft merit list of Education Volunteers for their rehabilitation as Gana Shikhyaks. Pursuant to such letter a gradation merit list was prepared in which the petitioner's name found place at serial number 69. The Sanabrahmapur EGS Centre was being managed by an NGO named SPEED. By letter dated 23.04.2008 the Managing Director of SPEED requested the BRCC to enlist the name of the petitioner and accordingly by letter dated 06.05.2008, BRCC recommended the name of the petitioner for enlistment to the DPC Balasore for inclusion in the list of Gana Shikhyak. Since such recommendation was not acted upon, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 14791 of 2012 which was disposed of on 01.10.2012 with a direction to the Collector to look into the grievance of the petitioner as per resolution dated 16.02.2008. However, the Collector, Balasore, by order dated 22.12.2012 rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that he was not engaged as Education Volunteer in Sanabrahmapur EGS. Challenging the order of the Collector, the petitioner again approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 22964 of 2013 which was disposed of on 31.07.2017 directing the Collector to take into account the incumbency of the petitioner as an Education Volunteer and original scheme as per the report of BRCC dated 22.01.2009. The Collector, without considering the facts on record and the report of BRCC rejected the claim of the petitioner again by order dated 20.09.2017, which is impugned in the present writ application. It is stated that despite clear evidence that the roll strength of the EGS Centre in question was more than 40 which justified engagement of the second volunteer, the Collector mechanically rejected the claim of the petitioner without considering the said evidence. Being thus aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court again in the present writ application seeking the following relief:
'It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased :-
(i) To admit the writ petition;
(ii) To quash the order of Collector, Balasore dtd.20.09.2017 (Annexure-15).
(iii) To direct the opposite parties to give engagement to the petitioner as Gana Sikshayak in view of the resolution of the Govt. dtd.16.2.2008 and further resolution dtd.26.2.2009 read with clarificatory instruction of the Govt. dtd.28.4.2008 and taking into account the gradation list of the B.R.C.C., Soro vide Annexure-7 and recommendation of B.R.C.C. vide Annexure-11 of the Writ petition.
And may pass any other appropriate order/orders as deemed fit and proper.
And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.'
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the District Project Coordinator (DPC), SSA, Balasore (opposite party No. 3). It is stated that the EGS Centre at Sanabrahmapur was managed by the NGO SPEED in which one Krushna Chandra Behera was working as Education Volunteer with effect from 16.6.20
