^ '^ <p IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CC.G.) ^I^J WRIT PETITION fS) N0. OF 2008 PETITIONER .y?<^ ^i^ ••^ ^'; ^^^ ^' :--^ RESPai^DENTS : ^ Smt. Anusuiya Sahu D/o Shrj Sitaram Sahu, aged about 25 years, Shiksha Karmi Grade-3, Govt. Middle School Ghuthiya, Janpad Panchayat Pathariya, District Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS 1. State ofChhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Department, Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). D.K.S. 2. C.G. Board of Secondary (l^ Education, Raipur (C.G.), through its Secretary. ^eo-v^^ ^ ^^- ^3l.to^. TheChief Executive Officer/Janpad Panchayat Pathariya, District Bilaspur (C.G.). .-^ 4. The Principal, Govt. Girls Higher ^^ Secondary School, Sarkanda, Bilaspur(C.G.). 5. The Principal, Govt. Boys Higher JL^- Secondary School, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.). 6. The Headmaster, Govt. Middle School Ghuthiya, Janpad Panchayat Pathariya, District Bilaspur (C.G.). .__Jtes r WRIT PFTTTTON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 5l!:i'' ,1^,;'' ;r.;': " B ^ Bilill: iWS^S. B!'' K:.;.; li:::' E i^ I!; MmiiK ill:^^..';r;;':J^':;:j'.;''^t];:';.?'''y'':'' ffit.::i?'.^.:'::^1'i-';3:l'::'l-':^. IR:iliM'<'ili-ilil:!;l:^l;l "^::;l;1l^ i?l^'^.;^'^:'^^-:^:;^: isii.iii F'j:";T;::'n:i^T~:.T HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 3173 of 2008 PETITIONER Smt. Ansuiya Sahu VERSUS isi i3ffl l;i81 lifl :Sf-: RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh and others ^ slswSI "il;i;ill :-''.s-^ '^^^ 'M^ lj:;;i:ji;;;IISIi3111I- llll:!illB11'11 @i.;IB' Shri P.P. Sahu counsel for thepetitioner ^SQ, Smt. Smitha Ghai PLforthe respondents 1,4,5 &f^|| Shri H.B. Agrawal learned Sr. counsel with Pankaj Agrawal for respondent No.2; WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IND|A OR D E R (27.09.2010) Grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that thoughshe tia^' passed the first year of D.Ed. examination, she was not permitted td appear in the second year of the said examination for no fault on ^e| part.and therefore a direction may be issued to respondent Nd;2||| allow herto appear in the second year examination of D.Ed. course^ ||| l;ll'li^1lii :ttjl|. 'Jn.:'';^ h:.i:.^:::f;IK!ii: IIBI: ;11:: ;:;,.^l^;lljll'.' ."lsl:l'8r ^w:&' wm111811111 J 2. Facts of the case in brief are that as the petitioner is working Sa^ Shiksha Karmi Grade III, she is entitled to do D.Ed. course. It is no^ disputed by the parties that teachers/Shiksha Karmis can undergc^ D.Ed. course while serving with the Government and they are requirecj' to attend training of 10 days each in two schedules in acalendar yearj It is not disputed that the petitioner underwent first schedule of 10 day,^ training in Mission Higher Secondary School, Bilaspur vide AnneXurej P-10 with effect from 30.4.2006 to 9.5.2006. She then underwent;th^ second schedule of 10 days training from the same school frT|t||l 31.5.2006 to 8.6.2006. First year examination ofthe said D.Ed. cours^| was held from 25.6.2006 to 1.7.2006 and the result of the same was declared in December 2006. Admittedly, result of the petitioner coulcl; not be declared along with the other similarly situated persons ir| December, 2006. According to the petitioner, in the first week lof •IW- m. %ii^s sWwti^ SfiHiilHK' •^•^m il-^.. ilS;.:ti:llllJ!l.: KitiiM lll;lri.'liJ:'^'i':^:^H^r;l:,;^^;^' - 2-- c'b .^ -l;'l: llir ^iti^'.^^i II WM January 2007 she approached the respondent No.2 to ascertain akxljjiJ her result where she was informed that her examination form has niojt been received in the office and therefore she was required to obtairj the certificate from the competent authority. On 25.1.2007 thej^ petitioner obtained the certificate from the Block Co-ordinator, Rajivj Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Block Patheria stating that her form wasi' already sent from the office of Block Co-ordinator to the office o^ District Project Officer on 30.3.2006 (filed as additional documenl before this Court). The petitioner's further case is that respondent Nc|.'4| jhad^alsowritten a letter (Annexure P-2) to respondent No.2 that,tt|| form of D.Ed. first year examination has been sent to the s|i||, respondent along with the forms of other candidates. Petitioner ha^ further averred that on 15.2.2007 she made a representation tc| respondent No.2 and again produced certificate dated 25.1.2007With]! iher letter Annexure P-3. However, when despite this the result was no^ communicated to her, she again approached respondent No.2 ori 16.3.2007 vide Annexure P-4. On 11.4.2007 vide annexure P-5 th^ Ipetitioner again sent the reminder to respondent No.2. In this letter, it^ Ifurther mentioned by the petitioner that training programme of 20 da^s| was to commence shortly and she has not been permitted to fill tiel Tl:ll'ljt^l;ii; form of second year of D.Ed. course and therefore, her result be giv|rij[||!t to her immediately and she may be permitted to undergo 20 days|%^ training so that she might not lose her valuable year. According to th^l j petitioner, the candidates whose result of first year D.Ed. course was| j declared earlier were supplied the examination forms along with tb4l mark-sheet of first year D.Ed. course. The petitioner also averred tha^l last date for submission of form for D.Ed. second year course was ir| IMarch, 2007 and the first schedule of 10 days training was to be helc|| from 30.4.2007 to 9.5.2007 and the second schedule of the saicji training was to be heid from 30.5.2007 to 9.6.2007 but shew||i deprived of undergoing the said training and appearing in th|;l ^Ki examination which had commenced from 25.6.2007.According to th^ i i! petitioner, ultimately.on20.6.2007 she received the mark-sheet of firsf year D.Ed. course vide Annexure R-2/2. Petitioner has also taken 4 plea that on 22.6.2007 after receiving the mark-sheet she agaTr|' iil ,;.t;^ '' f ''•^1'; 111- iligl 'iii? ''^w '11:-;'1; ;f;:i;liJ;.' •;!%:'il?li!!i^r: !:^'^^ii!::I!;ii: BflS rll;:y ^--M^ ••::j!:'^"a' l;'i!;BB:: i8ili :3!9V::: 118Sll! ^.^^ ^ ^S^^K. v^""b'^^. ^ ^. illll sv l@l:l-;i''l 1. K-^^... %jt!!"__~ "'^SSWM^- m l:;it"^1: ',!• ^l. -3- approached the office of Block Co-ordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksh^ Nission,Block Patheria for filling-in her form but she was not permittee| Ao doso and the said authority had asked her to approach respond^ No.2. On 25.6.2007 when she approached the respondent No.2,||j filling-in the form, same was denied on the ground that as she had||(|i ;,i;i!i undergone the two schedules training of 10 days each of second yiar D.Ed.course, she is not entitled to fill-in the form. According to tN petitioner, after tosing her one year in March 2008 she submitted th^ form of second year D.Ed. course which was obtained by her from thel offjce of Block Co-ordmator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission. Vicl^ Annexure P-6 her name was shown at S.No. 10 in the tist 6i icandidates who had to undergo the training of second year D.EdJ ^course for the said year. Petitioner has further averred that fr|rri; 11.5.2008 to 20.5.2008 she underwent her traininq of first schedulelKI '.^lll1 10 days training from Government Boys' Higher Secondary Schopi| Sarkanda, Bilaspur and undertook her training of second schedule| from the same school from 10.6.2008 to 19.6.2008. When despit^ completion of her training she was not allotted the enrollment number for appearing in the examination of D.Ed. second year which was |tc|; commence from 25.6.2008, she has filed this petition on 23.6.2008 anc| vide order dated 24.6.2008 this Court by way of an interim ordert ipermitted the petitioner to appear in the second year D:@y| examination subject to the final outcome of the petition. .'•lil :li;.'i.:'l>' 3. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the docume|f|| available on record. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has alread^] lost her valuable year for no fault on her part and when she ha^ completed the requisite schedules of the training of 10 days each foit the second year D.Ed. course, respondent No.2 has illegally no^ permitted the petitioner to appear in the examination and said actioh|0^ ^he respondent No.2 is against the provisions of law. He submits tha||r| the first year examination her result was not declared atong with Qtti||| candidates in the month of December, 2006 and had the same be|f \ ^ ilil S81 "'tllfl ^11,1;'1;11 .i':i':iia :^'l •'-; •^•:!i;i!" 'Mt- •.lj'i:^i' 1111: IIM 'rsiiis JBI 1 ^'1111 ^M ff II1' - :ili'!:::..';i' •:ii-:i;:':".;:':!-Yi' M^^'^l^ ^::'':!^l"ii; lltt SitillKillli :BI::illlil;;; IS^i:'13gllillr |jf- Eltel; ill:" m.K 31111 Bftl^^.'l^lili!;; iBISi^i.t.^lll:.l::^IBi;^ !"fl;!;'- ,' ;H!,r .. ': •' w-w'-::~ lil. iSi;' !lt'':'ii^:il"^ i^U.'.^ .,:-tim ll:u^'.'!t'<;^.::.''-:-tl!s!p'i M ^""•' :!.;i:.: ;',':!ii'; ^:,,: .•':...';;: IH1' ^l:ij{ III - ^- '!" '''I;'- declared at that very time, she could have completed her course in tlh^ year 2007 itself. He submits that the petitioner was given her mgrk^ sheet on 20.6.2007 whereas the examination for 2007 wasiil; .:,;,ii:iiii commence on 25.6.2007 andshewas orally refused on the gir(^|Ui :^tSM that as she had not undergone two schedules of training of 10 each, she cannot be permitted to participate in the said examinati0n| He submits that respondent No.2 is simply denying the candidature|o^ the petitioner on the basis of condition No.9 of the prospectus (Annexure R-2-1). However, none of the condition of the saic| prospectus is applicable in the case of the petitioner. He furttie^ submits that as the petitioner has already completed two training of 1C) days each for hersecond year D.Ed. course, that she has alrea|^| appeared in the main examination pursuant to the interimorder ofi|i| Court, the respondents may be directed to declare her result. v&^liil aai :J%lill::lil!8iJl I'liis i'r N^I.1.- ;i:rii: ^swi^ ililiii<: siii.^'ii.iiia ilSIHl:.;;illfl IB j-i/!yil'i'1^ 8118 SISil iffiB SSiil B8ll;- 111 i^ '1111. 'IIB^ 5. Denying the contention of the petitioner it has been argued || thecounsel for respondentNo.2 that though there was some delay|ir| declaring the result of the petitioner of first year D.Ed. course| ultimatety it was declared and communicated to the petitioner pr| 09.05.2007 vide Annexure R-2/4. It has also been argued that in vie^ ofclause-Qof the prospectus, the petitioner is not entitled to appearji^ jlhe second year D.Ed. examination after a gap of one year in the yeai{ 2008. Counsel for the State submits that as no specific relief hastoe|| claimed against the State he has nothing substantial tosay in tt1i| petifion. "sss. ,^gfill:;l iBjft iia ii.ail. .':1*11 ::,:'l'i:l!!ill ::'ltl::l Bi;l,tft ilj^i lll^i 6. From the record it is apparent that the petitioner has appeared in her first year D.Ed examination held in between 25.06.2006 anc|. 01.07.2006 but for no fault on her part the result was not dectared b^j respondent No.2 even till 09.05.2007 and this inordinate delay in «G]; doing has not been explained satisfactorily by respondent No.2j Moreover, there is no authentic document on record to show that thi^ letter dated 09.05.2007 (Annexure R-2/4) was ever communicated|||||jj the petitioner before 20.06.2007 and on 20.06.2007 the mark st-jlJJJjJJj Annexure R-2/2 was given to the petitioner. ;t.iri! tilil :; •>%:iSII:l''s m^- i:l:;:'.: ;.. IHi:/ IHi: 1111 !1!;,!.; lltil!a.;-'!!'ilTftfttii^ Klll^^^^^^^ %,.,;:. 'lH^' ^\:i t"'." lliill BJiill.:;l SI'it:^l,':'';-;.:!.:!''^S' --^-. m 7. This Court finds no force in the argument of Shri Agrawal thatjirt| view of clause-9 of the prospectus the petitioner is not entitled tcj appear in the second year of D.Ed. examination for the year 2QQ81J Clause-9 of the prospectus reads as under: ^t. T^ ^CT ^ c^ rtft czrf^T >MI^II^I v3^Tl^c||^ c^ ^q- ^ ^T t^ w^-m- f^^ T^s^ ?cT fsi^i^ zri- c^ Pl^Rd 1a^T J1Tsff c|^ ^ft TT^R 3TcRR c^ T^TSTT ^ 3T^N ?t^TT ~^,^ ^d^ ^rfW^ c^ yRl^ld T^T cjr^ c^ q^ld'tft f^T 3^qR^l4 c^Ruff ^- ipftCT ^ ''T t^ ^fcJTT ^ ^ft ^ ^i^ii^n ^r ^ ^SIT ^ ^P^Ria ^ t^ ^Rft ^ra c^f 3^TFft ^1'STF 4 c^T ^ 3TcT^R 3ft^ f^TT "^T^m" ^•^ i'-:h'•K^ i31: &'^^';, •!.:;-'.' mm •I'aii- ^IIISII; jBSI lii F|''J1SI B !B18" •:l:v'|l;iJ;!. •ii:;'..;l.:. s swi IRffiS! iMiiiiiia WIB A bare reading ofthe above clause makes itclear that the same is n!d| applicabte in the case of the petitioner who had appeared in th^ examination being in service candidate as at the relevant time she wasj working as Shiksha Karmi Grade III, the said rule does not ta.,l|<[; anything about those candidates who have appeared in ttne! examination while working as Shiksha Karmi. Furthermore,! find ncj force in the argument of Shri Agrawal that Annexure R-2/4 i.e. lette^ dated 09.05.2007 was received by one Laxmi Narayan Kosle ;^ 24.05.2007 and therefore it is to be presumed thatthe same musths|j been received by the petitioneralso on 24.05.2007. The petitioner\n|||| continuously approaching the respondents for getting her result frdn| January, 2007 but she was never informed about her result as a resul^ of which she could not appear in the second year D.Ed. examinatio^ whichwas held in the year2007 and ultimately after intervention ofthi^' Court she was permitted to appear in the said examination in theyeaTr 2008. The petitioner has already undergone the two requisite training^ of 10 days each and has already appeared in the second ye|i(| examjnation. il ':T3iB !.ii;:?ijl':. 'iiii.lPlll.' III :!;ili!- •^- -,;ftl Blll "i'"^l llll. ii^l ; :-iH^.'i|i;ii:Jllli'i: aia 8. In view ofthe discussion as above, the petition is ailowed/J|||||||||| respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitionei| pertaining to D.Ed.second year course immediately. - Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ,li::.'.'ii- ^ ^n ,'j, •••MW^.r .-•iilt:. ^Li;;'!:>;'^^;t:.pi :-!:|'Y!li'?l|-ill|?|jl|