c & ^ \L(^/' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR fC.G^ Writ Appeal No..T?..':.':..../2009 APPELLANT Trivikram Pradhan ( Petitioner No.l, in writ Petition) Aged about 48 Years S/o Shri Subhash Chandra Pradhan <),t,^ R/o- Gram- Palsapali, Post- Ankori, Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) RESPONDENTS: (In writ petition) 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary School Education D.K.S Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Secretary Panchayat and Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Mahasamund (C.G.) 4. District Project Co-ordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Mahasamund(C.G.) rPROFORMA RESPONDENTS) 5. Taruni Sen Sahu Aged about 47 Years S/o Shri Vibhishan Sahu R/o- Post- Rasoda, Basna, District- Mahasamund(C.G.) (Petitioner No.2 in Writ Petition) 6. Santlal Patel Aged about 45 Years ^ S/o Shri Shiv Prasad Patel R/o- Gram-Bhoradadar Post- Lambar, Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) (Petitioner No.3 in Writ Petition) 7. Shobharam Banchore Aged about 49 Years S/o Shri Nakul Ram Banchore R/o- Gram- Chandrakhuri, Post- Nagori, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) (Petitioner No.4 in Writ Petition) 8. Uttam Singh Chandravanshi Aged about 50 Years S/o Shri Sunau Chandravanshi R/o- Gram- Chiptikona Post- Bhavarpur, Basna Mahasamund (C.G.) (Petitioner No.5 in Writ Petition) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 OF SUB ~ SECTION fl^ OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT FAPPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH^ ACT, 2007 .^ : / ^ •^-...... HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR W. A. No. 271 of 2009 Appellaat Ishwar Prasad Tiwad Versus Respondents Union oflndia & others ^^^. W. A. No. 277 of2QQ9 AppeUaats Jayjayrata Tiwad & otiiers Versus Respondents Urdon of India & ofhers W.A. No. 298 of 2009 AppeUaat Vipia Kuinar Veiina Versus Respondents State of Chhatdsgai'h & ofhers W.A.No,3QO_of^Q09 AppeUaat Trivikram Pradhan Versus Respondents State of Chhatdsgarh & ofhers WRIT APPEAL UNDEI^ SECTION 2(1) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DMSION BENCH1 ACT. 2007 DB: Hon'ble Mr. I. M. Quddusi, & Honlale Mr. N. K. Agarwal, JJ. Shri P. P. Sahu, Shri Saadeep Dubey and Shri Mateen Siddque, Advocates for the appellaat. Ms Neelmia Verma, Advocate for fhe Union of India. Shri Kishore Bhadiiri, Additional Advocate General for the respondents/ State. Shri A. S. Kachwaha, Advocate for the Missiou Director, State Project Office aad Distarict Project Coordiaator, Rajeev Gaiidhi Shiksha Mission. O RD B R (oralt ( Passed on this 5th day ofJuly, 2010) Per I. M. Quddusi. J. 1. Heard leamed counsel appearing for fhe parties. ^^ 2. These Writ Appeals ( W.A.No.s 271, 277, 298 and 300 of 2009 ) have been filed by fhe appeUaats challengmg the prder dated 19.8.2009, passed by the leamed Smgle Judge ia W.P.(S) No. 2913/2009 aad other connected matters. 3, Brieffacts offhe case are tbiat fhe Gk>veiiuneii<t of India, iatroduced a scheme namely Urdversal Elementaxy Education Project ( W^ t^lSTT ^rPtqFp? gr'if^w f^rerr ^ <Hi4^-4|ct)<{ui ^ f^p? ^pf^^T). The book let (f^crft^ g^per ^iN ^rfSrgTf^r ^R fipm ^R^ct?!) regarding rules were issued by fh.e Mioistry of Huinaa Resources Developnient, Govemment of India ia 2004. The object of fhe scheme was to provide elementaiy education to all chiklren froni fhe age of6 to 14 years up to 2010. For unpleiaentation of fhe schenie fhe posts of Cluster Academic Coordiaator were created, The scheme provided that the State Govemment shatl also prepare a scheme for the State and Distaict Level. 4. Leamed\counsel for fhe State Govemment states fhat the Teachers woiild be sent on deputation subject to maximum of five years stay on fhe post of Cluster Academic Coordiaator. Fiirther, provisions for selection of Teachex-s for sendiag on the post of Cluster Acadeinic Coordiaator were also laid down by the State Cjoveninient 5. The conteution was raised before learaed Siagle Jiidge fhat fhe State Goverament has no jurisdiction to mterfere wifh the scheme aad to fi-ame Rules and also to lay down procediire for appomtment etc., as fhe scheme is of fhe Goverament of India. Learaed Siagle Judge has elaborately discussed fhe niatter aad disiaissed fhe writ petitions. <\.°? 6. The Secretary ofthe State Govenunent is ex-ofiScio Director offhe Mission. Further, Rajeev Gaadhi Abhiyau of fhe State level is a registered society under the provisions of fhe Society Registraton Act, fherefore it is but natural fhat aay action, which is to be taken ia respect of fhe said uistitoiition, is to be taken by fhe State under the Society Registration Act Therefore, fhe iaterference of fhe State Goverament is veiy much relevant. The Central Goveniment caanot make Rules for makmg appointment or development of fhe infrastoructure, supervision of the inission aad action taken fhereon. 7. The State Govenunent issued an adverdsement to fill up the posts of Cluster Academic Coordmator on deputatton from amongst Assistaat Teachers, Head Masters, Upper Division Teachers, but if senior persons, worldng as Teachers are available, there is no question of considering Teachei-s workmg ia lower pay scale. 8. In view of the above, we do not find aay Ulegality or unpropriety to iaterfere ia the impugned order passed by ftie learaed Single Judge, which we aflinn. 9. The writ appeals are inisconceived aad fherefore are dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- LM. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge Thalair t