I N T H E H O N ’ B L E H I G H C O U R T O F C H H A T T I S G A R H A T B I L A S P U R w . P . s . N o . q g a O O F 2 0 0 9 G o u t a m R a m Y a d a v S / o S h r i T r i l o c h a n Y a d a v , a g e d a b o u t a 3 3 y e a r s , r e S i d e n t o f - v i l l a g e — K o t i a , T a h s i 1 ~ K u n k u r i , D i s t t . J a s h p u r ( C . G . ) . H a r i h a r R a i n - Y a d a v S / o S h r i T r i l o c h a n R a m Y a d a v , a g e d a b o u t ~ 2 9 . y e a r s ‘ , r e s i d e n t o f v i l l a g e — B h a c h h a r a o n , T a h s i l — K u n k u r i j D i s t t . J a s h p u r ( C . G . ) V E R S U S U n i o n o f I n d i a t h r o u g h S e c r e t a r y , H u m a n R e s o u r c e s D e p a r t m e n t , N e w D e l h i . S t a t e o f C h h a t t i s g a r h t h r o u g h S e c r e a r y , S c h o o l E d u c a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t ; D K S B h a v a n , R a i p u r ( C . G . ) 3 . M i s s i o n D i r e c t o r , R a j y a P a r i y o j a n a O f f i c e , R a j e e v G a n d h i S h i k s h a M i s s i o n ) R a i p u r ( C . G . ) g / 4 . C o l l e c t o r c u m D i s t r i c t P r o j e c t . D i r e c t o r , R a j e e v G a n d h i S h i k s h a M i s s i o n , J a s h p u r D i s t t . J a s h p u r ( C . G . ) . 5 . C h i e f E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r , Z i l a P a n c h a y a t , R a j e e v G a n d h i S h i k s h a M i s s i o n , J a s h p u r D i s t t . J a s h p u r ( C . G . ) . D i s t r i c t E d u c a t i o n O f f i c e r , J a s h p u r , D i s i ‘ l . J a s h p u r ( C . G . ) . 4 W x % HI&H COURT OF CHHATTIS&ARH AT BILASPUR OIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI I.M.QUD&USI & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. A6AKWAL. JJ. WRIT PETITION N0.1893/2005 PETITIONEftS RESPON&ENTS Vs Shaskiya Aupcharikettar Shikshak San9h, Chhattisgarh <S others. State of C.6. <& others WRIT PETITION N0.3738/2004 PETITIONEftS Aditya Pratap Singh <S others Vs RESPONbENTS State of C.6. & others WRIT PETITION N0.4991/2004 PETITIONERS Hanshnath Singh <& others Vs ftESPONDENTS State of C.6. & others WRIT PETITION N0.1304/2005 PETITIONERS Tejendra Sin9h Chouhan <S others Vs R6SPON&ENTS Union of India A others WRIT PETITION N0.1851/2005 PETITIONER Vs RESPON&ENTS Priyanka Pawar State of C.6. & ors WRIT PETITION N0.1731/2005 PETITIONERS RESPON&ENTS Vs C.G. Rajya Panchayat Vaikatpik Shik. &others State of C.6. A others WRIT PETITION N0 1919/2005 PETITIONER yashwant Kumar Sahu Vs RESPON&ENTS State of C.6. <& others •^.y. „;•„.-•••<- v, ^ ,...(:^i..^:^ 'f^^w'S&K^^s- '•^^yss^ WRIT PETITION N0.1921/2005 PETITIONERS &r. Manish Sao A others Vs RESPON&ENTS State of C.6. A others WRIT PETITION N0.1929/2005 PETITIONER Ashok Kumar Tiwarj Vs RESPON&ENTS State of C.6. & others WRIT PETITION N0.2941/2005 PETITIONERS Sharad Kumar Ratre Vs RESPONDENTS Stote of C.6. & others WRIT PETITION N0 2733/2006 PETITIONERS Onkar Prosad Choubey <& ors Vs RESPON&ENTS Stote of C.6. & others & WftIT PETITION Fsl N0.4800/2009 PETITIONERS 6autam Ram Yadav <& another \/s RESPON&ENTS State of C.6. & others Present: ORALORDER {Passed on 11th August. 2010) I.M. Quddusi. J: Mr. R.S. Marhas, Mrs. Bharti Singh, Mr. M.K- Sinha, Mr. Anand Dadariya, Mr. Arun 5hukla, Mr. Rahul Jha, Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Mr. Malay K Bhaduri, For the respective petitioners in the aboye writ petitions Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate fieneral, Mr. R. Pradhan, Standing Counsel A Miss Divya Banjare, Advocate For the respective respondents in the above writ petitions. • 3 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The above writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the issue involved in atl these writ petitions is identical. However, for the purpose of this order facts of Writ Petition No.1893/2005 are referred. 3. By means of this petition the petitioners had inter-alia prayed fora direction to the respondent State for cognizing the merits of the petitioners in terms of experience and specialized training by awarding 20 marks as bonus in the process of selection as Shiksha Karmis right at the time of prescribing eligibilify o-f desirable candidates to be called for interview iri requirement of Rule 5 of the Shiksha Karmi Recruitment Rules, 1997 by incorporating its amendment. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed as Supervisors or Instructors under the Non- Formal Education Scheme on different dates. The petitioners worked under the said scheme satisfactorily until its closure in the year 2000. The said scheme was substituted by a scheme known as 'Education 6uarantee Scheme' (E6S) and the teachers appointed under the said scheme has been termed as '©uruji'. The criteria/ qualifications for the appointment of 'Suruji' are that the Instructors/Supervisors working in the Non-Formal Education Scheme shall be given priority in selection. The erstwhite State of M.P. recruited contract teachers by [ncorporating certain amendments in the Rule 5 of the Panchayat Shala Samvida Shikshiak(Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001, 'which was adopted by the State of Chhattisgarh also at the time of reorganization of the State of M.P. The said action was challenged before the High Court and the High Court vide order dated 23.10.2002 t 9J?' declared the amended Rutes, 2001 as ultra vires and set aside the appointments. After creation of State of Chhottisgarh, the post of 'Suruji has been converted into 'Samvida Shikshak' (contract teachers) and thereafter, the respondent State authorities advertised for recruitment of contract teachers ignoring the claim of the petitioners herein by introducing amended rules i.e. C.G. Panchayat Shala Samvidoi Shikshak (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2004. The said action of the State was challenged by filing writ petitions before this Court and this Court vide order dated 28.1.2005 the same were quashed being ultra vires to the provisions of Constitution of India. The respondent State of Chhattisgarh vide notification No.296 dated 11.8.04 in the note under Schedule-II relaxation of 8 years for the post of contract teachers has been provided to the instructors/supervisors working the Non-Formal Education Scheme. However, no bonus marks have been awarded for the Instructors & Supervisors of the Non-Formal Education Scheme, whereas in the Panchayat Shata Samvida Shikshak (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2002 twenty bonus marks are reserved for the Instructors & Supervisors of the Non-Formal Education Scheme. 5. Before entering into the merits of the case, we have been informed by Mr. Bhaduri, learned Additionat Advocate ©eneral for the State that on the representation of the concerned persons, the Hon'ble Chief Minister has referred the matter with a direction to consider the matter according to the provisions prevailing in the State of Madhya Pradesh in respect of appointment of contract teachers. In pursuance to that the Under Secretary, School Education Department. 6ovt. of Chhattisgarh has written a vide letter Roshan/- bearing No.Fl-160/2009/20-Ek ftaipur dated 6.7.2010 to the Additional Chief Secretary, 6ovt. of C.Q.. Oepartment of Panchayat and Rural bevelopment and in which it has been mentioned that directions have been issued by the Chief Minister on the proposal of the Directorate of Public Education and order passed by the ©overnmentof Madhya Pradesh dated 05.10.2009 regarding appointment of the Instructors and Supervisors on the post of contract teacher on the similar lines. Along with said letter, the Under Secretary has also sent the copy of letter dated 11.6.2010 received from the l>iceGtorate of Public Education, Madhya Pradesh for necessary action, 6. In view of above( we expect that a qujck decision will be taken and therefore, without any comments, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the State Sovernment to take decision as expeditiously as possible latest by 31 December, 2010, subject to moving application for extension, if required, giving reasons for the same. 7. Needless to mention that if the petitioners feel aggrieved by the decision of the State Sovernment, it will be open for them tb take recpurse of law against the same. 8. A,cpp^;of this order be placed in the other connected writ peti'nons. 9. CeB'ti'fied copy as per rutes. li Sd/- N.K.Agarwal ! I.M.Quddusi Judge Judge