Smt. Jyoti Duklan vs State of Uttaranchal and Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

Both these petitions pertain to a similar issue and hence are being decided together.

The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 60 of 2006 (S/S) has challenged orders dated 19th January, 2006 and 27th January, 2006. By order dated 19th January, 2006 passed by the Block Education Officer, Kaljikhal Block, District Pauri Garhwal (Annexure 8 to the writ petition), the appointment of the Petitioner as "Shiksha Mitra" has been cancelled, as there was a complaint by one Smt. Rekha Rawat, wife of Soban Singh Rawat dated 18th January, 2006 against her. Consequent to the order dated 19th January, 2006, another order was passed by the Principal, Primary School, Kaljikhal, Pauri Garhwal on 27th January, 2006 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition), whereby the appointment of the Petitioner has been cancelled. Both these orders have been challenged in the present writ petition (Writ Petition (S/S) No. 60 of 2006).

In the counter affidavit, the defence of the State is that vide advertisement dated 28th November, 2005 certain posts of "Shiksha Mitra" in various Blocks in District Pauri Garhwal were advertised. The last date of submission of forms by eligible candidates was 6th December, 2005. All the same, a mistake was being rectified by way of corrigendum dated 6th December, 2005, whereby the post of "Shiksha Mitra" for Primary School Dhaura in Block Kaljikhal for Village Dangi was wrongly advertised as for Village "Kund". Another mistake was that whereas the post that was advertised was for Scheduled Caste candidate, by way of corrigendum it was reserved for women (general) candidate. These are the mistakes which have been admitted by the State Authorities. Though the mistakes were rectified in the Corrigendum, time was not extended to move the application, as the last date was 6th December, 2005, i.e. the date on which the corrigendum was published. On 6th December, 2005 only one application was received on behalf of the Petitioner and she was appointed as "Shiksha Mitra". Subsequently there was a complaint made and her appointment was cancelled by the orders, which have already been referred above. The main ground for challenge of these two orders by the Petitioner is that these two orders have been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and hence they are liable to be set aside. Admittedly, the post on which the appointment of "Shiksha Mitra" has been given to the Petitioner was initially declared as reserved for only Scheduled Caste candidate. According to the State, this was actually not reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate but it was a post for women (general) candidate. All the same, when such a Corrigendum was issued, opportunity should have been given to the eligible candidates, who could have applied for the same. Logically, many women (general) candidates thinking that these posts are reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates would have obviously not applied for the post. This action of the Respondents itself is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore totally illegal and arbitrary. However, these are not the reasons which have been given in the impugned order by which the appointment of the Petitioner has been cancelled. The impugned order simply states that there have been some complaints against the Petitioner regarding her appointment. Though from the counter affidavit, it appears that the Respondents had committed an illegality by making an appointment of the Petitioner, however, the manner in which her appointment has been cancelled is also wrong inasmuch the Petitioner was liable to be given a show cause notice before terminating her services. This Court has been informed that in this writ petition (i.e. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 60 of 2006) by an interim order, the Petitioner (Smt. Jyoti Duklan) is still continuing on the post of "Shiksha Mitra". She will continue on the post of "Shiksha Mitra" subject to the re-hearing of the matter by the concerned Authority, who shall now re-advertise the post and after giving reasonable opportunities to all the eligible candidates shall make new selection. It is made clear that till such fresh selection is made (in which the present Petitioner is free to participate), the present Petitioner shall continue to work as "Shiksha Mitra".

The second writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1049 of 2006 (S/S) has been filed by Smt. Rekha Devi, in which she has claimed appointment on the post of "Shiksha Mitra" being a woman (general) candidate. Since it has also been directed by this Court that fresh selection be made to the post of "Shiksha Mitra" in the present case, the Petitioner (Smt. Rekha Devi) is free to participate in the fresh selection. The writ petitions are therefore disposed of accordingly. Evidently, the manner in which the State Authorities, particularly the then Additional District Education Officer (Basic), Pauri Garhwal (who as it has been informed was Mr. Mahabir Singh Bisht) has proceeded in the matter casts clear doubt as apparently what has been done is in order to give unfair advantage to some. Although nothing is being said on this aspect, this remains a matter for investigation. Therefore, the Director of Education, State of Uttarakhand is directed to conduct an inquiry in the matter as to under what circumstances the concerned Additional District Education Officer did not give proper opportunity to candidates to apply for the post of "Shiksha Mitra". The inquiry must be conducted by the Director of Education, State of Uttarakhand expeditiously after giving all the concerned parties opportunity of hearing. As far as the present matter is concerned, though the appointment of Petitioner on the post of "Shiksha Mitra" is vitiated on the grounds already stated above, purely in the interest of students, till the Director of Education decides on the issue by making a further advertisement for the post of "Shiksha Mitra" in the concerned School, where all the eligible candidates, including the Petitioner will be free to apply, the Petitioner (Smt. Jyoti Duklan) shall continue till then on the post of "Shiksha Mitra" in the concerned Primary School. It is further directed that the exercise of filling up the post of "Shiksha Mitra" shall be finished within a period of three months from today, and the continuance of the Petitioner (Smt. Jyoti Duklan) as "Shiksha Mitra" shall be subject to the decision of the new selection.

No order as to costs.