Ahalya Jena Vs State and Ors. — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ahalya Jena Vs State and Ors. — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the Collector, Balasore to call for all records pertaining to the Education Volunteers working in Oupada Block at the relevant time, the communications of the BRCC Coordinator and the DPC, and the selection committee proceedings of 02.09.2008, to be subjectively satisfied as regards the merit of the petitioner's claim and to pass necessary orders in accordance with law; the whole exercise to be completed within two months from production of certified copy of the order by the petitioner.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a disengaged Education Volunteer recommended by the BRCC Coordinator and the District Project Coordinator for rehabilitation as Gana Sikshyak, was entitled to consideration of his claim for such rehabilitation. +1 more

Court's answer

There was some kind of miscommunication between the office of the DPC and the concerned authorities, for which the case of the petitioner and similarly situated persons was not considered at the relevant time.

Ratio / Principle

The Court finds force in the petitioner's counsel's submission that had the petitioner been engaged as Gana Sikhayak at the relevant time he would have had a fair chance of becoming Sikhaya Sahayak, Junior Teacher and, after six years, a regular teacher; the one-time-scheme/infructuousness objection therefore does not extinguish the claim.

Key takeaways

The writ application is disposed of directing the Collector, Balasore to call for all records pertaining to the Education Volunteers working in Oupada Block at the relevant time, the communications of the BRCC Coordinator and the DPC including the selection committee proceedings of 02.09.2008, and, being subjectively satisfied as to the merit of the petitioner's claim, to pass necessary orders in accordance with law.ratio¶21
The whole exercise directed is to be completed within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order by the petitioner.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court, Cuttack (Sashikanta Mishra, J.), WP(C) No. 8928 of 2010, order dated 10.02.2025. The petitioner, engaged as an Education Volunteer under Salabandh E.G.S. Centre by order dated 25.03.2007 of the Secretary of NGO RALISA, faced disengagement on closure of the E.G.S. Scheme and sought rehabilitation as Gana Sikshyak under the Government scheme dated 16.02.2008. Although the BRCC Coordinator, Oupada (letter dated 06.08.2008) and the District Project Coordinator, SSA, Balasore (letter dated 03.11.2008, founded on the selection committee's decision dated 02.09.2008, after verification of documents) had recommended 43 Education Volunteers including the petitioner, his case was not considered; the State's counter affidavit asserted his name was not found in verification of profiles up to 2006-07 and urged that the rehabilitation scheme was one-time with no post of Gana Sikhayak presently existing. Holding that there was miscommunication between the office of the DPC and the concerned authorities, and finding force in the submission that timely engagement would have given the petitioner a fair chance of progression to Sikhaya Sahayak, Junior Teacher and regular teacher, the Court disposed of the writ application (confined to petitioner No.1, claims of petitioner Nos. 2-4 having been not pressed) directing the Collector, Balasore to call for all relevant records and communications, be subjectively satisfied as to the merit of the petitioner's claim and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, the exercise to be completed within two months of production of the certified copy. No statute or precedent is cited in the order.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

WP(C) No. 8928 of 2010

Ahalya Jena & `…. Petitioner Others Represented by Mr. B.Mohanty, Advocate -Versus - State Of Odisha & Ors …. Opposite Parties Represented by AGA

CORAM:

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER_

Order No. 01.

10.02.2025

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Memo of appearance of Mr. B.Mohanty be kept on record who

is also appearing for the petitioner.

Heard Mr. B.Mohanty, learned counsel submits that the writ application in so far as it relates petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 is not pressed and be confined only in respect of petitioner No.1.

The petitioner claims to have been engaged as an Education Volunteer under Salabandh E.G.S. Centre by order dated 25.03.2007 of the Secretary of the concerned NGO- RALISA. The E.G.S. Scheme having been closed, persons like the petitioner faced disengagement. The Government floated a scheme on 16.02.2008 for rehabilitation of the disengaged Education Volunteers as Gana Sikshyaks. The petitioner claims that after verification of the relevant documents, the BRCC Coordinator at Oupada vide letter dated 06.08.2008 forwarded list of several such disengaged

Page 1 of 3

education volunteers including the petitioner for being rehabilitated as Gana Sikhayak. It was specifically mentioned in the said letter that these persons have fulfilled the eligibility criteria for the purpose. Since the case of the petitioner was not considered despite such recommendation, he approached this Court in the present writ application.

The stand of the State as reflected in its counter affidavit, is that the name of the petitioner was not found during verification of Education Volunteer’s profile submitted by the NGO, RALISA up to the year 2006-07.

In course of hearing, attention of this Court is drawn to letter dated 03.11.2008 of the District Project Coordinator, SSA, Balasore wherein the names of 43 Education Volunteers under Oupada block was recommended for their rehabilitation as Gana Sikhayaks. Such communication was made on the basis of the decision taken by the selection committee on 02.09.2008. It is stated that all the relevant documents were verified by the selection committee before making the recommendation. As has already been stated, the State counsel in his counter has made no reference to these communications made by the BRCC, Coordinator as well as the DPC. It seems there was some kind of miscommunication between the office of the DPC and the concerned authorities for which the case of the petitioner and similarly situated persons was not considered at the relevant time.

Learned State counsel submits that the writ application must be treated as infructuous in view of the fact that, the rehabilitation of the Education Volunteer as Gana Sikhayaks was a one-time scheme floated with the purpose of rehabilitating them. Presently,

Page 2 of 3

there is no post of Gana Sikhayak. Countering this argument, Mr. Mohanty would submit that had the petitioner been engaged as Gana Sikhayak at the relevant time, he would have had a fair chance of becoming Sikhaya Sahayak and Junior Teacher and after completion of 6 years, a regular teacher.

This Court finds force in the submission of Mr. Mohanty as above. There seems to have been a miscommunication between the authorities at the relevant time. The writ application is therefore, disposed of directing the Collector, Balasore to call for all the records pertaining to the Education Volunteers working in Oupada Block at the relevant time as also the communications made by the BRCC Coordinator and the DPC including the proceedings of the selection committee meeting held on 02.09.2008 recommending the cases of different Education Volunteers including the petitioner for being subjectively satisfied as regards merit of the claim of the petitioner and to pass necessary orders in accordance with law. The whole exercise should be completed within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner.

( Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

Deepak

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 12-Feb-2025 12:21:53

Page 3 of 3