1997 Supreme(MP) 508

D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.
Hiralal Patel v. Chief Executive Officer
Writ Petition No. 968 of 1997 (J); Decided on 14.8.1997.

Headnote:(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 41 -- M.P. Education Guarantee Scheme -- Scheme is not statutory -- framed to achieve directive principle of State Policy -- appointment as Shiksha Karmi -- is on honorarium -- he does not hold any post or office -- appointment not made in accordance with Scheme -- rightly set aside.

        (2) Natural Justice -- appointment not made in accordance with Scheme -- may be set aside without affording any opportunity of hearing.

       ¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 41 & e-Á- f‘k{kk ÁR;kHkwfr ;kstuk & ;kstuk dkuwuh ugha gS & jkT; uhfr ds funs‘k fl)karksa dh miyfC/k ds fy, fojfpr & f‘k{kkdehZ ds :i esa fu;qfDr & ekuns; ij gS & og dksbZ in LFkku vFkok vf/kdkj in /kkj.k ugha djrk & fu;qfDr ;kstuk ds vuqlkj ugha dh xbZ & Bhd gh vikLr dh xbZA

        ¼2½ uSlfxZd U;k; & fu;qfDr ;kstuk ds vuqlkj ugha dh xbZ & lquokbZ dk dksbZ volj fn, fcuk vikLr dh tk ldrh gSA

        The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.2.1997 (Annexure - P/5) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sarangarh and the consequential order of Gram Panchayat Amlideepa, District Raigarh whereby the petitioners appointment as Shiksha Karmi under M.P. Education Guarantee Scheme (hereinafter referred to as EGS for short) has been set aside and in his place Smt. Asha Chouhan (respondent No. 5) has been appointed.

        Held : For deciding the competing claims of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 for appointment to the post of Shiksha Karmi, the relevant provisions of the Education Guarantee Scheme will have to be examined. The Shiksha Guarantee Scheme is not statutory but are merely executive instructions. It is framed with the object to implement the Directive Principles of State Policy. The aim of the scheme is to provide minimum primary education to all children in the villages by 2000. The Government took a decision that in villages with a population even of 300, primary education facility should be provided by establishing a primary school within a range of 1 k.m. and for village with lesser population, a centre has to be opened for the purpose. Under the scheme, wherever there is no such educational facility, the village community can make a demand through the concerned Gram Panchayat. The village community has to recommend the name of Shiksha Karmi who are fit to be appointed as teachers. The demand of the village community is then required to be sent by Gram Panchayat to Janpad Panchayat through its education committee or Chief Executive Officer who will make the appointments. As far as possible, appointment of Shiksha Karmis are to be made from the recommendations made by the village community. The expected qualifications for appointment as Shiksha Karmis, apart from recommendation from village community, are that the candidate should be a local resident and as far as possible women would be preferred. The object of giving preference to women appears to be that in the field of providing primary education to village children, participation of women have to be encouraged. Reading the scheme as a whole, it does not appear that it carves out any reservation in favour of any category or categories such as women or educated male or local residents. The scheme is aimed at providing primary education to village children as far as possible through the available educated persons in the village itself and in that programme to encourage participation of women.

        In the instant case, it appears that the petitioner was recommended by the Gram Panchayat but no recommendation of village community exists in his favour. The appointment of Shiksha Karmis under the scheme does not confer any statutory status or right on any of the candidates. The appointment is on a honorarium. The appointee does not hold any post or office. He only lends assistance in spreading primary education.

        As has been explained above, the respondent No. 5 as a women from the village community was available. She has in fact approached through one of the members of Janpad Panchayat. Her candidature, however, could not be considered as she lagged behind in the process of selection. When the authorities derived knowledge that a suitable women candidate is available for appointment, the petitioners appointment was cancelled and respondent No. 5 was appointed. The petitioner in the above circumstances, and particularly in view of the benevolent purpose of the scheme, framed for implementing the Directive Principles of State Policy, cannot claim any right and complain on the ground of breach or principles of natural justice. The process of appointment of the petitioner itself was not in accordance with the scheme. In such circumstances, breach of principles of natural justice cannot be raised as a ground. See : State of M.P. and others v. Shyama Pardi and others [(1996) 7 SCC 118].

        Petitioner dismissed