Santosh Kumari vs State of H.P.

Sanjay Karol, J.—Petitioner has effectively prayed for the following relief:-

(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner as EGS Instructor w.e.f. 1.102003 to 10.3.2004, on the basis of oral orders of the respondents, for the purpose of appointment to the post of Graminin Vidya Upasak and the pay for this period may also be granted to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 9%.

Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client would be content if prayer is allowed only for purposes of continuity of service.

Record perused and returned. It is quite apparent, in fact there is not much dispute either, that applications for filling up posts of Volunteer/Instructor EGS in the school at Channi Majra were invited on 17.6.2003. Petitioner appeared in the interview and selection committee prepared a panel in which one Sh. Hanif Mohammad was placed at Sr. No. 1 and petitioner Ms. Santosh Kumari was placed at Sr. No. 2. Selection was made on the basis of merit. It appears that only Sh. Hanif Mohammad was issued letter of appointment in spite of the fact that there were 45 children in the school and two persons could have been appointed. Record does not reveal as to why initially petitioner was not issued letter of appointment for the post for which interviews were conducted particularly when panel of two persons was prepared and also two posts were in existence, which as per norms, in any event were required to be filled up. According to the petitioner, she discharged her duties w.e.f. 1.10.2003. Respondents in their reply admit this fact but clarify that such duties were discharged by her voluntarily, to which petitioner has replied by stating that she was assured that letter of appointment would be issued in due course. Be that as it may be, record reveals that w.e.f. 1.10.2003 petitioner did mark her presence in the register maintained by the school and continued to discharge her duties of EGS Volunteer/Instructor continuously and uninterruptedly till 6.3.2004. Subsequently on 4th October, 2004 she was appointed as Instructor in the very same school and continued to work there till 10.7.2008.

There is no dispute that for such period for which petitioner discharged her duties w.e.f. 1.10.2003 there is no complaint or grievance against her from any quarter.

In the year 2008, the very scheme under which petitioner and Sh. Hanif Mohammad were appointed came to an end. As such, Government took a policy decision of giving appointment as Gramin Vidya Upasak, to such persons who were having four years experience and also possessing educational qualification of 10+2. It is not in dispute that from 4.10.2004 till 10.7.2008 petitioner successfully discharged her duties and completed three years and nine months of service. The shortfall is only of three months. Respondents have not taken into account period of service rendered by the petitioner between 1.10.2003 to 6.3.2004. There is no justification for not having done so. Petitioner is otherwise fully entitled to and eligible to be appointed as a Gramin Vidya Upasak on contract basis through Gram Panchayats. Petitioner actually did successfully discharge her duties for a period which was more than four months. Noticeably Sh. Hanif Mohammad also has been appointed as Gramin Vidya Upasak.

As such, there shall be direction to the respondents to count period of service rendered by the petitioner as EGS Instructor w.e.f. 1.10.2003 to 6.3.2004 for the purpose of considering the petitioner�s case for appointment to the post of Gramin Vidya Upasak. It is clarified that such period shall be considered only for the purpose of continuity of service and not for monetary benefits. Consequential action shall positively be taken by the respondents within a period of three months from date of receipt of certified copy of judgment.

Petition stands dispose of, so also the pending application(s), if any.