Disposed

Jagabandhu Nanaka v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC7 Aug 2015WP(C)/1237/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition by the Scheduled Tribe candidates regarding their exclusion from a panel list due to lack of specific experience. It held that while their grievance needed to be raised before the competent authority first, no merit was decided.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of petition granting liberty to approach State Project Director, OPEPA, Bhubaneswar within three weeks for consideration after providing opportunity of being heard.

The petitioners who are Scheduled Tribe candidates having the requisite qualification i.e., +2 with experience of working as an Education Volunteer/Language Instructor in Multiling ual Education School has approached this Court for consideration of their candidature and abso rption as Sikhya Sahayak in view of the decision of the Government to engage Sikhya Sahayak fo r MLE Programme. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Government has taken a decision to engage Sikhya Sahayak for MLE Programme prescribing certain eligibility conditions, one of the eligi bility conditions is that working experience as an Education Volunteer/Language Instructor in MLE School is also to be considered.

According to the petitioners since they have got wide experience as Education Voluntee r/Language Instructor in MLE School for imparting better education in Kuvi language. But without considering this aspect of the matter, the authorities have published a pa nel list on the basis of the higher educational qualification ignoring the experience of the p etitioners.

The case of the petitioners is that since Sikhya Sahyak is required to be engaged in M LE School under MLE Programme the experience acquired by the petitioners will be of paramount relevance for imparting better education as such the decision of the authorities in engaging t he candidate having higher education qualification ignoring experience in particular school is absolutely improper.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are still working in the School having MLE Programme, leaving them engaging other candidates havin g higher education qualification will frustrate entire spirit of the scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there are still vacancie s existing in different Schools under MLE Programme. Learned counsel for the School and Mass Education Department has raised preliminary ob jection that the petitioner has directly approached this Court without raising their grievance before the competent authority. However, he has fairly submitted that if the petitioner will approach before the compe tent authority, decision in accordance with law shall be taken. On such submission, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to approach before the opposite party no.2-State Project Director, OPEPA, Bhubaneswar within three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along with copy of the wr it petition.

The concerned opposite party shall take decision after providing opportunity of being heard to the petitioners within a reasonable period preferably within eight weeks from the dat e of receipt of representation. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merit of the claim of the pe titioners.

Jagabandhu Nanaka v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagabandhu Nanaka v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balaram Sadangi Vs State of Orissa

Institute of Career Vs Asst.Pro.Fund.Commn

Somjit Biswal Vs a.P.Fund Commnr.

Debendra Nimala Vs State and Ors.

Anirudha Mandangi Vs State and Ors.

Bikram Bratika Vs State and Ors.