Smt. Amarjeet Kaur vs Smt. Urmila Rani and Others

Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

This special appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 623 of 2010 (S/S), whereby

the writ petition filed by Smt. Urmila Rani (respondent no.1 herein) was allowed and appointment of Ms. Amarjeet Kuar (appellant herein) as Shiksha

Mitra was quashed with a further direction to appoint the writ petitioner against the said vacancy.

Respondent no.1-Smt. Urmila Rani filed a writ petition challenging the letter dated 12.02.2009 issued by District Education Officer, Udham Singh

Nagar to Block Education Officer, Gadarpur, wherein it was stated that two Shiksha Acharya, namely, Smt. Amarjeet Kaur and Smt. Seema Kakkar,

who possess Bachelors Degree, be absorbed as Shiksha Mitra in Government Primary School, Ramjeevanpur No.-3 and Government Primary School,

Narpatnagar, respectively. In the writ petition, the resolution passed by Village Education Committee on 04.07.2006 to appoint the appellant as Shiksha

Mitra in Government Primary School, Ramjeevanpur No.-3, was also challenged. A further relief was also sought to remove the appellant from

service and appoint the writ petitioner (respondent herein), in her place.

It was the contention of respondent no.1 in her writ petition that she was engaged as Shiksha Acharya in Education Guarantee Center,

Ramjeevanpur No.-3 w.e.f. 01.11.2004. There is a Government Policy, which provides that upon up-gradation of Education Guarantee Center as

Government Primary School, the Shiksha Acharya serving there would be appointed as Shiksha Mitra, if they are qualified. Education Guarantee

Center, Ramjeevanpur No. 3 was upgraded as Government Primary School in the year 2006, however, her claim was not considered for appointment

as Shiksha Mitra on the ground that she is not graduate and the appellant, who had never served as Shiksha Acharya, was appointed as Shiksha Mitra

in the said School. It was further contended in the writ petition that she was awarded Bachelors Degree by Kumaun University in the year-1988,

therefore rejection of her candidature is unjust. It was further alleged that husband of the appellant is Gram Pradhan of the concerned village,

therefore appellant was given undue benefit by appointing her as Shiksha Mitra in the newly upgraded school.

The appellant-Smt. Amarjeet Kaur in her counter affidavit denied the allegation that her husband is Village Pradhan and stated that one Smt.Seema

Rani W/o Mohan Lal is Pradhan of the concerned Village. It was further stated that she was appointed as Shiksha Acharya in Education Guarantee

Center, Ramjeevanpur- No.3 in the year 2004, against leave vacancy of the regular Shiksha Acharya and she continuously served in the said capacity

till her appointment as Shiksha Mitra. It was further stated that when the Education Guarantee Centre was upgraded, she applied for appointment as

Shiksha Mitra and the Village Education Committee in its meeting dated 04.07.2006, resolved to absorb her as Shiksha Mitra and Block Education

Officer, Gadarpur granted necessary approval for her appointment as Shiksha Mitra vide letter dated 24.02.2009. It was further alleged that Smt.

Urmila Rani-respondent no.1 served in some other institution as Shiksha Acharya and not in the institution in question, which is corroborated by the

concerned Block Education Officer in his report.

District Education Officer, Udham Singh Nagar filed a counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 and stated that Education Guarantee

Centre, Ramjeevanpur-No.3 was earlier run by an N.G.O., which was upgraded as Government Primary School in the year-2006. It was further

stated that at the time of its up-gradation, only two Shiksha Acharyas were serving, namely Smt. Amarjeet Kaur and Kumari Priyanka Khera and the

writ petitioner-Smt. Urmila Rani was never appointed as Shiksha Acharya in the said institution. It was further stated that pursuant to representation

submitted by writ petitioner-Smt. Urmila Rani, Deputy Block Education Officer made an inquiry in which it was found that she (Smt. Urmila Rani)

was never appointed in the concerned institution.

Smt. Urmila Rani (writ petitioner) did not file any rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavits filed by the respondents in the writ petition, therefore,

the averments made in the counter affidavits stand un-rebutted.

Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by holding: (i) the Bachelors Degree possessed by the writ petitioner-Smt. Urmila Rani was ignored

and (ii) there is inherent contradiction in the report dated 25.08.2008 submitted by Deputy Block Education Officer, Gadarpur as at one place it states

that as per the information received, writ petitioner served as Shiksha Acharya from November, 2004 to the year 2005-06 but thereafter it states that

Smt. Urmila Rani had not served in the Education Guarantee Centre, Ramjeevanpur No.3. Paragraph no.16 of the impugned judgment is relevant,

which is extracted below:

In that view of the matter, since admittedly as per the documents on record the petitioner has been inducted as Shiksha Mitra on 01.11.2004, and

as per the certificate which has been made available on the record he wished as Shiksha Acharya and couple with the findings recorded by Assistant

Block Development Officer in the inquiry report, she has worked as Shiksha Acharya till the Education Guarantee Centre was up-graded into Primary

School and since she had the requisite qualification of graduation available with her, her candidature could not have been rejected and she ought to

have been granted the status of Shiksha Mitra.

It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the stand taken in the counter affidavits filed by her as well as District Education

Officer, has not been considered in the impugned judgment. It is further submitted that only such persons were entitled to be absorbed as Shiksha

Mitra, who were serving as Shiksha Acharya at the time of up-gradation of Education Guarantee Centre as Government Primary School. It is further

contended that since the writ petitioner-Smt. Urmila Rani was not serving as Shiksha Acharya in the Education Guarantee Centre at the time of its up-

gradation, therefore she was not entitled for absorption as Shiksha Mitra.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

The vital question which falls for consideration is whether writ petitioner (respondent no.1 herein) was serving as Shiksha Acharya in Education

Guarantee Centre, Ramjeevanpur No.3 at the time of its up-gradation as Government Primary School. This is purely a question of fact. The inquiry

report submitted by the Deputy Education Officer on 25.08.2008 is ambiguous, as has been rightly pointed out by learned Single Judge.

In the absence of any concrete evidence to prove that the writ petitioner-Smt. Urmila Rani was serving as Shiksha Acharya at the time of up-

gradation of Education Guarantee Centre, Ramjeevanpur No.3, direction cannot be issued to appoint her in place of the appellant. In such view of the

matter, we modify the impugned judgment and dispose of the appeal with the following directions:

(i) Joint Director of Education, Kumaun Region, Nainital shall constitute a three member committee headed by an Officer not below the rank of

District Education Officer. The said Committee shall make an inquiry:-

(a) as to whether Smt. Urmila Rani (respondent no.1) was serving as Shiksha Acharya in Education Guarantee Centre, Ramjeevanpur No.3 on the

date of its up-gradation as Government Primary School.

(b) If the inquiry committee finds that Smt. Urmila Rani was serving as Shiksha Acharya in Education Guarantee Centre, Ramjeevanpur No.3, then

the Committee shall also examine the question whether Smt. Amarjeet Kaur had a better claim for absorption as Shiksha Mitra in the said institution.

(ii) The said inquiry committee shall be constituted within one week from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

(iii) The inquiry committee shall submit its report to Joint Director within three weeks thereafter.

(iv) The Joint Director shall pass final order in the light of findings returned by Inquiry Committee within two weeks from date of receipt of the inquiry

report.

(v) Appointment of the appellant shall abide by the outcome of the enquiry and final order to be passed by the Joint Director. Till then, status quo shall

be maintained.