CWP No.2312 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.2312 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.01.2011 **** Paramjit Kaur & Anr. . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. BS Bajwa, Advocate; Mr. LS Sandhu, Advocate; Mr. LS Sidhu, Advocate; Mr. Karambir Singh Kahlon, Advocate; Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate; for the PETITIONER(s) Ms. Monica Chibber Sharma, DAG Punjab and Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate; Ms. Tina Garg, Advocate; Mr. APS Mann, Advocate; Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate; Mr. Amit Mehta, Advocate; for SARV SHIKSHA ABHIYAN **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWPs No.2312, 11683, 16447, 16536, 16707, 17204, 17223, 17679, 18132 & 19487; 17942, 18432, 18746, 19278, 19332, 19435, 19755, 20377, 20700, 20804, 21566, 21822 & 23205 of 2010; 423 of 2011 CWP No.2312 of 2010.doc - 2 – as issues involved in these cases are similar in nature. For brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP No.2312 of 2010 wherein the pleadings are complete. (2). The petitioners seek a mandamus to direct the respondents including the Village Education Development Committee (PASWAK), Government Senior Secondary School (Boys), Gurdaspur to allow them to continue as Education Volunteers till the completion of their tenure and not to relieve them from the afore-stated posts on the plea that they were more than 35 years of age at the time of appointment. (3). Shorn of the details, suffice it to mention here that for the effective implementation of Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan Project, the Committee handling its work at the State level used to appoint Block Resource Persons from amongst the regular teachers of Education Department, Punjab. Since the non-availability of Block Resource Persons used to cause interruption in imparting of school education in the rural area, a policy decision was taken at the State-level which was circulated by the Projects Director, Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, Punjab vide instructions dated 29.11.2004 (Annexure R1) to all the District Education Officers (EE), Punjab, whereby instead of appointing the Block Resource Persons from amongst the CWP No.2312 of 2010.doc - 3 – teachers of the Education Department, the Village Education Development Committees were permitted to recruit two Education Volunteers preferably from the same village and/or from the nearby village subject to the following terms and conditions:- 1. The school from which BRP shall be appointed, in place of him, in that very school two Education Workers shall be appointed by the PASWAK of that very village. 2. If the same are not available in that village, then they can be appointed from the nearby village. 3. The appointment of Education Worker (Karmi) shall be made by the PASWAK i.e. village Education Development Committee, purely on merit basis and the Merit will not be disturbed in any circumstances. 4. The Sikhiya Karmi (Education Worker) should be from 20 years to 35 years. 5. Preference will be given to Science and Math Graduate. 6. The numeration (remuneration) shall be paid according to the qualifications as mentioned below:- Graduate Rs.2500/- per month Graduate B.Ed. Rs.3000/- per month Post Graduate + B.Ed. Rs.3500/- per month 7. Village Education Development Committee has the full powers to appoint/relieve any Education Karmi. CWP No.2312 of 2010.doc - 4 – However, the supervision of the work of the Sikhya-Karmi, shall be of the village School Development Committee.” (4). Both the petitioners were also appointed as Education Volunteers by respondent No.4 – Village Education Development Committee, pursuant to the above-stated Scheme/Policy. They joined their duties as such w.e.f. 15.12.2009. It is not in dispute that the initial appointment of the petitioners was for a period of one year only. The petitioners, however, apprehended termination of their services and have approached this Court for issuance of a direction for their continuation. (5). The initial tenure of one year for which the petitioners were appointed though has since expired, there is no denial to the fact that the Village Education Development Committee is competent to renew the contract. The said Committee having done so, the petitioners still continue as Education Volunteers. (6). The solitary question that arises for consideration is as to whether or not the petitioners could be employed as Education Volunteers contrary to the instructions/policy decision dated 29.11.2004 (Annexure R1) as they were more than 35 years of age at the time of their initial appointment? CWP No.2312 of 2010.doc - 5 – (7). Since the appointment and/or the terms and conditions of the employment of the Education Volunteers is not governed by the statutory rules, it could not indeed be disputed that the executive instructions/policy decision dated 29.11.2004 (Annexure R1) would ordinarily hold the field and the Village Education Development Committees are obligated to appoint the Education Volunteers strictly in accordance with the criteria/eligibility conditions laid down in the afore-stated policy circular dated 29.11.2004 (Annexure R1). (8). However, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners and rightly so that much water has flown after 2004 as the State Government has enhanced the maximum age for recruitment to Government service from 35 to 42 years. In my considered view, if the maximum age prescribed for appointment to a civil post in the State of Punjab is enhanced to 42 years, there appears to be no reason or rationale for not updating the instructions/policy decision dated 29.11.2004 (Annexure R1) and/or not permitting the Village Education Development Committees to employ the Education Volunteers by enhancing the maximum age. However, instead of expressing any final view in this regard, it would be more appropriate to leave it to the State CWP No.2312 of 2010.doc - 6 – Projects Director, Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, Punjab, to take an objective and holistic view in the matter and if so required, revise the instructions/policy circular dated 29.11.2004 (Annexure R1). (9). Since the petitioners in all these cases, though were above the age of 35 years and have been employed as Education Volunteers for a period of one year, it is directed that they shall be allowed to complete their prescribed tenure of one year and their further continuation, if any, shall be decided by their respective Village Education Development Committee strictly as per the revised policy decision to be taken by the State Projects Director, Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, Punjab as directed above. The State Projects Director, Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, Punjab, shall take an appropriate decision within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (10). In those cases where the Education Volunteers have been relieved without completion of one year tenure only on the ground that they were above 35 years of age at the time of appointment, their relieving orders are set aside/annulled and the respondents are directed to let them continue as Education Volunteers for the initial term of one year only and/or as per the decision to be CWP No.2312 of 2010.doc - 7 – taken by the Projects Director, Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, Punjab. (11). With these observations and directions, all the writ petitions stand disposed of. (12). Dasti . 18.01.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge