The petitioner challenged an order refusing his engagement as Sikshya Sahayak due to lack of training qualification. The Court held that the authority correctly evaluated his merit based on +2 marks, which were insufficient for selection, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No. 966 of 2007
Due to cease work call given by Orissa High Court Bar Association, none appears for the parties. Perused the record.
The petitioner has filed this application seeking to quash the order dated 18.09.2006 passed by the Collector, Boudh in Annexure-2 permitting the petitioner who belongs schedule caste category to compete with other scheduled caste candidates, as he has got +2 qualification but does not have possessed training qualification to be eligible for engagement to the post of Sikshya Sahayak and further seeks for direction to issue necessary appointment letter as Sikshya Sahayak in Boudh district pursuant to notification under Annexure-3.
As per the pleadings available on record, it appears that the petitioner who was working as nonformal facilitator under the Non-Formal Education Scheme was disengaged from service. But on the basis of the demand raised by the Non-Formal Teachers Association under EGS and AIE scheme was formulated by the government where preference has been given to non-formal facilitator. Thereby, the petitioner claims that he being an untrained non-formal facilitator and retrenched from service, should be given engagement as per the EGS and AIE scheme formulated by the
Government. Due to non-consideration of his case, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.8424 of 2006 and this Court vide order dated 30.08.2006 disposed of the said writ petition directing to consider the representation of the petitioner for engagement as Swechasevi Sikhya Sahayak and on that basis the representation of the petitioner has been considered and he was permitted to participate in the process of selection belonging to scheduled caste category and his educational qualification is +2 pass and he has no training qualification, he is eligible for engagement to the post of Sikshya Sahayak competing on merits along with other scheduled caste candidate
Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, opposite parties have entered appearance and filed counter affidavit wherein it is specifically stated that the case of the petitioner was considered on merits on the basis that he being an untrained scheduled caste candidate of Kantamal block. The merit of the petitioner was therefore considered only on the basis of his +2 marks, which were 39.33%, without any additional grace marks for which he was not eligible. On the basis of his merit as per his +2 marks, the petitioner could not make it to the final selection list as the closing percentage for +2 untrained S.C. candidates for Kantamal block was above 52%. Therefore, on the ground of merit the petitioner did not qualify for the final selection. Accordingly, he has not been selected
nor he has been given any engagement order as scheduled caste candidate as claimed by him.
Considering the pleadings available on record, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner has been considered by the authority and as such he has been permitted to compete with other scheduled caste candidates belonging to untrained S.C. category and he having been secured less percentage of marks, this Court is of the considered view that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority in not giving engagement as Sikshya Sahayak.
Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and is thus dismissed.
Ashok
…………….…………… (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to engagement as Sekshya Sahayak despite lacking required training qualification.
Whether the authority committed illegality in refusing engagement based on merit of +2 marks.
Petitioner
Collector, Boudh
DR. B.R. SARANGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
