Naseem Akhtar vs State

Mr. B.S. Walia, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was appointed as Education Volunteer vide agreement with the

local community on an honorarium of Rs. 1000/- per month for a period of one year commencing 25.01.2006. The aforementioned agreement

between the petitioner and the local community was accepted by the ZEO Manjakote on the same date as evident from the stand of the official

respondents in paragraph No. 4 the objections.

Learned counsel for the official respondents states thin in terms of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) Scheme, approval to the appointment of an

Education Volunteer has to be obtained from the CFO,but in this case, no approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Education Volunteer

was obtained from the CEO. However, in the light of paragraph No. 4 of the objections, learned counsel for the official respondents admits that

the petitioner continued in service as Education Volunteer uninterruptedly with effect from 25.01.2006 for although the petitioner was engaged as

Education Volunteer for a period of one year with effect from 2-5.01.2006, no notice was issued to her for termination of her services after expiry

of one year.

Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the contents of paragraph No. 3 of the objections, states that an Education Volunteer, who has

served for a number of years,.as per policy of the government is to be converted and appointed as RET after sometime where after such appointee

is to be regularised as permanent General Line Teacher after obtaining annual assessment report from the community/its representative.

In the light of the aforementioned position, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner having admittedly continued in service for a

period of close to nine years is entitled to conversion and appointment to the post of RET followed by regularisation as General Line Teacher

though of course subject to annual assessment report from the community/its representative. Learned counsel further states that although work has

been taken uninterruptedly from the petitioner over the years, yet no honorarium has been paid to her.

Application for impleadment has been moved by one Mussarat Begum for opposing the claim of the petitioner on the ground that no approval

was obtained to the appointment of the petitioner from the (Competent Authority i.e. the CEO, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to be

considered for conversion and appointment to the post of RET etc.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and am of the considered view that once the petitioner was appointed as Education Volunteer vide

agreement dated 25.01.2006 executed between the local community and the petitioner and thereafter was admittedly continued in service

uninterruptedly without termination of her service and the agreement between the parties was also received by the ZEO on 25.01.2006 itself, the

question of approval to the appointment of the petitioner was the responsibility of the official respondents. In the absence of a stand that the matter

pertaining to grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Education Volunteer was rejected by the Competent Authority, the only

inference which can be drawn is of their being deemed approval of the Competent Authority to the appointment of the petitioner as Education

Volunteer.

The petitioner from whom services have been taken for a period of close to one decade cannot be prejudiced for the inaction on the part of the

official respondents therefore, the grievance of the petitioner that the action of the official respondents in advertising the post of RET instead of

converting the status of the petitioner from that of Education Volunteer to RET is arbitrary exercise of power, merits acceptance.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the official respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for

conversion of her status from that of Education Volunteer to RET in accordance with rules and regulations applicable upon assessment of her

annual performance to be obtained from the local community and to take a decision with regard to the claim of the petitioner on the said basis as

expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The official respondents

are also directed to consider and decide within the aforesaid period the claim of the petitioner for payment of honorarium, in view of the admitted

position of the petitioner uninterruptedly continuing in service with effect from 25.01.2006. Payment of honorarium be made as per entitlement in

accordance with rules within one month of decision of claim within the time allowed failing which the payment would be made along with interest @

6% p.a. on the amount due and payable w.e.f. the date of entitlement till date of payment. In the eventuality of interest having to be paid to the

petitioner on the honorarium amount, the interest payable would be recoverable by the government from the officer concerned responsible for non-

compliance with the orders of this Court within the stipulated period of time.

Writ petition is disposed of along with connected MP(s).