Sukumar Mandal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:3433

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 484 of 2021

¶6

Neelpad Rai S/o Late Kiran Rai, Aged About 41 Years R/o., Village Kamalpur, Post Aragahi, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattigarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

--- Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Secretary, School Education Department, State Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Collector, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Purandih, New Gram Panchayat Kamalpur, Block Ramchandrapur District Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

--- Respondent(s)

¶15

WPS No. 493 of 2021

¶16

Sukumar Mandal S/o Shri Nanigopal Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Krishna Nagar, Kedvasila, Post Aragahi, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

2

--- Petitioner

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶21

Secretary School Education Department, State Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶22

Collector District Balrampur, Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶23

Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ramchandrapur,district Balrampur, Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶24

Sarapanch, Gram Panchayat Krishna Nagar (Kevdasila), Block Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶25

--- Respondent(s)

¶26

For Petitioners	:	Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Ghanshyam Patel and Mr. Asgar Ali,
No,.4		Advocates.
For State		Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. Govt. Advocate

¶27

(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶28

Order on Board

¶29

20/01/2025

¶30

The petitioners have filed these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 5-11-2020 (Annexure P/1) whereby the Chief Executive Officer has not given ten marks for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi on the count that they are not Shiksha Karmis but they were employees of Janbhagidari Teacher Grade-Ii and accordingly, it has rejected the applications of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Shikshakarmi. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners have approached this Court by

¶31

3

¶32

filing WPS Nos. 8468 of 2019 and 8592 of 2019 wherein this Court has directed the respondents to decide the representations of the petitioners and if they are similarly situated persons then they shall also be granted appointment on the post of Shikshakarmi. It has also been directed by this Court that the respondent authorities are expected to pass an order purely in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the field and take a decision on the representation of the petitioners within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the respondent authority has considered the representation of the petitioners and vide its order dated 5-11-2020 has rejected the same. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the instant Writ Petitions.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are similarly situated persons as they were appointed on the post of Janbhagidari Teacher Grade II, but they are Samvida Shiksha Karmis, therefore, they should be granted benefits of appointment at par with other Samvida Shiksha Karmis whose appointments have been continued and they have been treated as Shiksha Karmis in view of the policy decision taken by the State Government dated 23-4-2005.

¶34

Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 would submit that the order impugned passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ramchandrapur District - Balrampur- Ramanujganj is appealable under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 but instead of availing the remedy the petitioners have directly approached this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶35

4

¶36

India without availing the efficacious alternative remedy available to them under the statute, therefore, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. He would further submit that the petitioners were initially appointed as teacher under the Jan Bhagidari Scheme from the period 2003 to 2006 on honorarium basis by the concerned Jan Bhagidari Samiti of the school. He would further submit that the petitioners were neither substantively appointed nor they were appointed against sanctioned vacant post. The aforesaid appointments were made as time gap arrangement as the recruitment rules were to be finalized for regular recruitment and appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi. He would further submit that the State in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 has framed the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 which was published in the gazette on 01/01/1998. The State Government has directed for recruitment/appointment and fill the posts of Shiksha Karmi strictly in accordance with the Rules of 1997 and the post of Shiksha Karmi would be filled up by way of direct recruitment after obtaining applications from the eligible candidates.

¶37

He would further submit that as per the circular issued on 23.04.2005, the State Government has taken a policy decision of conversion of the post of teachers working on contract basis to the post of Shiksha Karmi. The circular further provides that teachers who only continued as contract teachers without any break in service were allowed to be appointed on this post by converting the post of contract teacher to

¶38

5

¶39

Shikshakarmi.

¶40

The circular further provides that Contract Teacher Grade-III will be converted into Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, similarly Contract Teacher Grade-II to Shiksha Karmi Grade-II and Contract Teacher Grade-I to Shiksha Karmi Grade-I. Since the petitioners were at the relevant point of time not employed as contract teachers in any of the schools under the Jila Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat, these rules/circulars are not applicable to them. Therefore, they cannot be treated as parity with other petitioners who have been appointed on the post of Shikshakarmi. He would further submit that the petitioners did not challenge the action of the respondents for 20 years and have approached this Hon'ble Court in the year 2019 only, as such also the petitions are liable to be dismissed on account of delay and latches also. He would further submit that these petitions are devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed on this count alone.

¶41

He would further submit that from the documents submitted by the petitioners, it was found that the petitioners were appointed as Janbhagidari Teacher during the period from 2003 to 2006 and their appointments have already been cancelled by the Chief Executive Officer which was communicated to them. He would further submit that they were not working as contract teachers on the date of issuance of circular dated 23/04/2005 for conversion of contract teacher to Shiksha Karmi in accordance with the Rules, 1997, as such also they are not entitled to claim any relief. Thus he would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions.

¶42

6

¶43

Learned State counsel supports the stand taken by learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions.

¶44

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶45

This Court has gone through the record and from bare perusal of the record, it is quite vivid that none of the documents referred to by the petitioners to demonstrate that they are contractual employees and from the documents annexed with the petition it is quite vivid that they are employees of Janbhagiedari Teachers and not Samvida Shiksha Karmis, therefore, the petitioners cannot be treated at par with other similarly situated persons. It is well settled position of law that it is for the person who claims that he is entitled to get similar relief to plead and prove which the petitioners have miserably failed to prove the same. Considering the entire factual matrix of the case, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting any interference by this Court.

¶46

RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU

¶47