Orissa High Court
Balaram Behera & Others vs State Of Orissa & Another on 7 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.9968 of 2022
Balaram Behera & others ......... Petitioners
Mr. N. Panda, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Orissa & another .......... Opp. Parties
Mr. S.N. Mohapatra,
Sr. Standing Counsel,
S & M.E. Department.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
ORDER
07.09.2022
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. The defect No.6 has been removed by the petitioners.
3. We have heard Mr. N. Panda, learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as Mr. S.N. Mohapatra learned Senior Standing
Counsel appearing for the School & Mass Education Department in
part.
4. Let the matter be listed on 15.09.2022 for continuation of
hearing.
5. The Opp. Parties shall file an affidavit explaining how and
why they have failed to implement the order dated 08.02.2016
delivered in W.P.(C) No.26 of 2014 titled as Lily Acharya & others
vs. Secretary to Government of Orissa, School & Mass Education
Department & others.
6. It may be mentioned that the petitioner No.1 in this writ
petition was the petitioner No.7 in W.P.(C) No.26 of 2014. In the said
Judgment dated 08.02.2016, this Court had occasion to observe as
follows:
"Accordingly, the order dated 19.10.2013 passed by the
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, School & Mass Education
Department, Govt. of Odisha vide Annexure-14 is hereby
quashed and the matter is remitted back to the very same
authority to reconsider the same once again in accordance
with the judgment passed by this Court in Rashmirekha
Patra (supra) and pass appropriate order in accordance
with law by affording opportunity of hearing to all the
parties within a period of three months from the date of
communication of this order."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has categorically stated
that no order has been passed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary,
School & Mass Education Department, Government of Odisha in
pursuant to the order dated 08.02.2016, as a result of which the writ
petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26 of 2014 had instituted a proceeding for
drawing up the contempt action.
8. However, no contempt action was drawn finally against him
on observing that, if the authority, which adopted the resolution dated
05.04.2008, Annexure-3 to this petition, the Court cannot help the
petitioners. However, that order is not relevant in the present context.
One of the petitioners in the earlier petition, being W.P.(C) No.26 of
2014 has approached again this Court, by formulating the relief
differently.
9. In Rashmirekha Patra & five others, [the judgment dated
14.12.2012, delivered in W.P.(C) No.1716 of 2012 and other writ
petitions], this Court had observed as follows:
"12. The stand that similarly situated persons in other
districts have been engaged as Ganasikshyaks under SSA
is not disputed by opposite parties. It is nobody's case that
both Centers are not functioning under the same Scheme.
It is also not disputed that their process of recruitment and
rehabilitation etc. are same. Appointment was made as per
the decision taken by the competent authority. Both
Education Volunteers working in EGS/AIE Centers were
disengaged pursuant to Resolution dated 16.02.2008. It
appears that the Government after careful consideration of
the case of the Education Volunteers under EGS Scheme
decided to rehabilitate them in EGS Centers, who have
been disengaged or facing disengagement under EGS
Scheme. It is not understood as to when the Education
Volunteers working in EGS Centers as well as AIE Centers
were disengaged and they were facing problems as to why
Government has issued Resolution dated 16.02.2008 only
considering the case of Education Volunteers working in
EGS Centers who have been disengaged but did not
consider the case of Education Volunteers working in AIE
Centers. In the counter, no valid reason has been assigned
as to why the case of Education Volunteers working in AIE
Centers was not considered. The only stand taken by
opposite party No.1-Commissioner-cum-Secretary, School
and Mass Education Department, Odisha, Bhubaneswar is
that in view of Resolution dated 16.02.2008, the case of
Education Volunteers working in AIE Centers could not be
considered. Mr. Pandey has not satisfactorily met the
allegation of the petitioners that the action of opposite
parties is a clear case of discrimination and violates the
constitutional mandates of equality enshrined in Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
13. In the present case, no valid and cogent reason has
been assigned by learned Standing Counsel to justify the
Resolution dated 16.02.2008 passed by the Government of
Odisha in School & Mass Education Department only in
rehabilitating disengaged Education Volunteers working
under EGS Centers and ignoring the case of similarly
situated persons in AIE Centers.
14. The fact of the case decided by this Court on
03.08.2010 in W.P.(C) No.20566 of 2009 is not similar to
the fact of the present case. Apart from that, there is hardly
any detailed discussion about the fact and scenario
involved in the aforesaid cases. Therefore, the decision in
that case is not applicable to the case of the present
petitioners.
15. In the fact situation, this Court directs the State
Government to consider the matter afresh and pass
appropriate order within a period of two months from
today taking into account various stands taken by the
petitioners and observations of this Court made above and
the fact that different yardsticks have been followed in
different districts.
16. So far the order passed under Annexure-6, opposite
party No.1 only followed the resolution dated 16.02.2008
passed by the Government, and rejected the
representations of the petitioners. Therefore, in the
circumstances, the order passed by opposite party No.1
(Annexure-6) is quashed and he is directed to reconsider
the case of the petitioners in the light of the decision that
would be taken by the Government pursuant to this
judgment."
10. The affidavit, as asked as us, be filed invariably by the next
date dealing with why those observations of Rashimerekha Patra
(supra) have not been extended to the petitioners.
11. A free copy of this order be provided to Mr. S.N. Mohapatra,
learned Senior Standing Counsel for the School & Mass Education
Department forthwith.
(S. Talapatra)
Judge
(M.S. Sahoo)
