IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATFISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION s N0. “ %§% OF 2009 Collector & District Mission Director, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan), Bilaspur (C.G.), ”chief Bilaspur & District Project Director, Rajeev Gandhi 5. Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, F” m . . (PFTTTIONERS Ishwar about 45 Chhedi Lal Tiwari, aged about Cluster years, At present posted as Cluster Cluster Academic Coordinator, Block Resource Centre, Baima, Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ’ 1. ‘ /Union of India, Elementary Through the Secretary Elementary Education ' and Literacy Department, V Human Resources Delhi. Development Ministry, New 2. State of Chhattisgarh School Through: The Secretary D.K.S. Education Department, Bhawan, Raip'ur (C.G.) / Director, 3. Mission Gandhi State Project Office, Rajeev Shiksha Shiksha Mission (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan), Raipur (C.G.) ' $mg§r§g @Q Shiksha Mission (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan), Bilaspur (C.G.) / 6. The District Project Coordinator, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan), Bilaspur (C.G.) f, g WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION O/F INDIA § HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGH AT $ILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) WFii’ Petition (S) No. 291 3 of 2009 Writ Petition (S) No. 2780 of 2009 Writ Petition (S) No 2794 of 2009 Writ Petition (S) No 2795 of zoos Wnt Petition (S) No 2796 of 2009 Writ Petition (S) No 2797 of 2009 Writ Petition (S) No 2798 of 2009 Wnt Petition (S) No 2799 of 2009 Wnt Petition (S) No 2300 of 2009 Writ Petition (S) No m1 of 2009 Writ Petition (S) No 2802 of 2009 Writ Petition (S) No m3 of 2009 Writ Petition (S) No m4 of 2009 Writ Petition (5) No. 2305 of zoos Writ Petition (5) No zaos of 2009 Writ Petition (S) No $58 of 2009 Writ Petition (S) No m7 of 2008 Writ Petition (S) No 2947 of 2009 Writ Petition (S) No 2948 of 2009 Writ Petition (S) No 2571 of 2009 rit'mke Judge Post for pronouncement of the order on 19 3.2009. Sd/‘ r Diwaker i i P HIGH COURT OF GHI-[ATTISGH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 2913 of 2009 Trivikram Pradhan and others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others. Shri Mateen Siddiqui counsel for the petitioners. Shri Kishore Bhaduri Additional Advocate Generai for the respondentsIState‘ Shri A.S. Kachhwaha counsel for respondent Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission. Writ Petition (s) No. 2780‘of 2009 Vlpin Kumar Verma. VERSUS PETITIONER state of Chhattisgarh and others; RESPONDENTS Shri Mateen siddiqui counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kishore Bhaduri Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha counsel for respondent - / Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission. Writ Petition (S) No. 2794 of 2009 Mahendra Sharma. VERSUS PETITIONER state of Chhattisgarh and others. RESPONDENTS Shri Rajiv Shrlvastava counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kishore Bhaduri Additional Advocate General for the respondentsiState. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha counsel for respondent — Rajiv Gandhi $hiksha Mission. / - Writ Petition (S) No. 2795 of 2009 ai Narayan Sahu. VERSUS PETITIONER RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others. Shri Rajiv Shrivastava counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kishore Bhaduri Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. 7 Shri A.S. Kachhwaha counsel for respondent — VRajlv Gandhi Shiksha Mission. Writ Petition (S)‘ No. 2796 ofzoaq PETITIONER Ramanuj Sharma. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others. Shri Rajiv Shrivastava counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kishore Bhaduri Additionai Advocate General for the respondentslState. ' Shri A.S. Kachhwaha counsel for respondent - Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission. Writ Petition (S) No. 27W of 2009 ‘ PETITIONER i/ Samar Singh Thakur. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others. Shri Rajiv Shrivastava counsel for the petitioner. ' Shri Kishore Bhaduri Additional Advocate General for the respondentslState. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha counsel for respondent -/\ Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Missiongl/ Writ PetitioniS) No. 2798 of 2009 PETITIONER Rati Ram Sonwani. VERSUS J RESPONDENTS Stateof Chhattisggrh and others. Shri Rajiv Shrivastava counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kishore Bhaduri Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha counsel for respondent’— Rajiv Gandhi Shlksha Mission.’ ETITIONER P RESPONDENTS PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition (S) No. 2799‘ of 2009 Kashi Ram Sahu; VERSUS State of Chhattlsgarh and othersr Shri Rajlv Shi'ivastava counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kishore Bhaduri Additional Advocate General fo'r the respondents/State. a Shri A.S. Kachhwaha counsel for respondent — Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission. ‘ Writ Petition (s) No, 2800 of 2009 ' Surya Kant Vajpayee. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh and others. ‘7 ,/ Shri Rajiv Shrivastava counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kishore Bhaduri Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. ‘ Shri A.S. Kachhwaha counsel for respondent — Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission. Writ Petition '(S) N0. 2801 of 2009 Amar Singh Patel. VERSUS State of ’Chhattisgarh and othersqi‘ l Shri Rajiv Shrivastava counsel forthe petitioner. l i i l Wg H6) ’9’ Shri Kishore Bhaduri Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha counsel for respondent -- Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission. Writ Petition (S) No. 2802 of 2009 PETITIONER Dev Prasad Bhardwaj. VERSUS REsPONDENTs State of Chhattisgarh and others. Shri Rajiv Shrivastava counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kishore ‘ Bhaduri Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha counsel for respondent — l Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission. Writ Petition (S) N0. 2803 of 2009 Jamuna Kishore Sharma. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State'of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Rajiv Shrivastava counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kishore Bhaduri Additional AdVOGate General for the respondents/State Shri A S Kachhwaha counsel for respondent — " Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission Writ Petition (S) No. 2804 0f 2009 Rajendra Kumar Keskar. VERSUS i RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and‘others i i Shrl Rauv Shnvastava counsel for the petitioner Shri Kishore Bhadun Additlona Advocate l General for the respondents/State Shri A S Kachhwaha counsel for respondent Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Missmn . i l l RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS Writ Petition (S) No. 2805 or 2M9 Moti Lal Bhardwaj. > VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh and others. Shri Rajiv Shrivastava counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kishore Bhaduri Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha counsel for respondent — Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission. Writ Petition (S) No. 2806 of 2009 Paras Ram Sonwani. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh and others. Shri Rajiv Shrivastava counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kishore Bhaduri- Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha counsel for respondent - Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission. T‘t‘ PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ‘Writ Petition (S) No. 2858 of 2009 lshwar Prasad Tiwari. VERSUS Union of lndia and others. Shri P.P. Sahu counsel for the petitioner. Shri Raghvendra Pradhan counsel for Union of lndia. shri Kishore Bhaduri Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State Shn A S Kachhwaha counsel for respondent 4 Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission Writ Petition (S) No. 2877 of 2009 / Union of fndia and others. Shri P.P. Sahu counsel for the petitioner. Shri Raghvendra Pradhan counsel for Union of India. Shri Kishore Bhaduri Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha counsel for respondent — Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE'226 OF THE CON8TITUTION OF INDIA OR DE R ( 15.03.2009) Since the dispute involved in all the aforementioned writ petitions is of identical character, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. Challenge in all these petitions is to the issuance of various advertisements and the action of the State Government by which a decision has been taken to conduct an examination for appointment of Cluster Academic Co—coordinator (for brevity f‘Coordinator") under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. This decision was taken by the State Government in pursuance of the letter dated 13.2.2009 written by the Under Secretary, School Education Department which reads asunder : / “To, The Mission Director, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Chham'sgarh, Raipur Sub:— Regarding appointment criteria of Cluster Academic coordinator under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. Till now lncharge Cluster Academic coorwnatoris taken on deputation by distt. Collector as per the fat/owing criteria. For the post of Cluster Academic coordinator appointment, priority is given to teachers who are graduate, B.Ed., B.T.I., Trained teacher, with pay scale Rs.5000-8000,. minimum age is 45 years, wider touring capacity and of sound health having 5 years teaching experience in the post of “Teacher”. The appointment process which is in force is amongst Head Master of upper primary school recommended by D.E.O. and appointed by collector. As the basis of appointment is recommended by DE O only, so at many places ass:stant teachers are also m charge without fulfilling mentioned cntena The quality of curriculam will improve when Cluster Academic Coordinator appointed is knowledgeable and skilled. The entire selection process and eligibility is defined below - 1. For the post of Cluster Academic coordinator the minimum qualiticatian is graduate, B.Ed., B.T.l. (D.Ed.), Trained teacher, in the pay scale Rs. 5000-8000, maximum age 55 years, wider touring having capacity and of sound health and having minimum teaching experience of 5 years in primary / upper primary school holding the post of “Teacher” will be appointed on priority basis, 2 Collector should advertise the post of Cluster Academic coordinator on the basis of the above mentioned criteria 3. Zila Panchayat should invite application and vertn/ it on the basis of eligibility mentioned above. 4. DIET of .concemed wstrict should conduct bnef ex’am of the eligible candidates in the first part syllabus related to subject knowledge from class l to 8 , and the second part related to “Teaching aptitude” For testing teaching aptitude question should be related to theory of education, educational psychology, educational innovation, skill etc. Interview should be based on testing of subject knowledge, leadership skill, management skill communication skill problem solwng skill presentation stall and other abrlrtres 80% should be kept in wntten examination In which 50-50 marks can be kept or wntten exam of part-I and part II 20% should be kept for interview. 5. For selection process a districtlevel a committee headed by the chief executive otticer and consisu’ng of dist. Education oti‘icer, assistant commissioner tribal development, and District Prefect coordinator as member and principal dist. Institute of education and training as a member secretary. 6. After the written examination selected candidates has to appear before selection committee for interview, which shouid be based as mentioned in point no. 04 and having positive thinking, wider touring capacity be assessed. Selection of Cluster Academic coordinator will be based on combining 20% marks of interview and 80% marks of written exam after having approve! of collector. _ 7. All the old and new Cluster Academic coordinator will be selected on the basis of brief exam. 8. Head masters of primary / upper pn'mary school will not be selected for Cluster Academic coorwnator. 9. Appointment should be made for maximum 5 years. If after selection any lack in efliciency is observed then one month prior notice be given and they should be relieved for their original post. 10. Post can also be filled by shiksha kanni -02 in any cluster where no application has been received by teachers or in absence of eligible teachers. Bibiana Tirkey Under Secretary cc; Govt. School Education Dept. Raipur (C.G.)" / 3. The main grievance of the petitioners in this batch of petitions is that they are working as Coordinator since 1996 onwards and after expiry of about 12 years no fresh recruitment can be made by disiodging them. The writ petitions have been Fried by the Assistant Teachers, Head Masters and the Upper Division Teachers with an averment that tirstiy they are not required to face an examination to be conducted at the District Level and secondly the Assistant Teachers and the Head Masters who have been i debarred from appearing in the examination have every right tof ‘ A’I v’ partEcipate in the examination and they can not be excluded from participating in the examination. 4. Sometime in the year 1996 the Government of india introduced a scheme commonly known as District Primary Education Programme (for brevity (“DPEP”) with an object to impart free education up to primary level to the down trodden people of the society. Initially, under the DPEP scheme the Central Government used to give aid to the extent of 75 per cent and the remaining 25 per cent was being given by the State Government. It is not in dispute that presently the Central Government is giving 65 per cent whereas remaining 35 per Cent is being given by the State Government. The first and foremost object of the DPEP scheme was to ensure qualitative improvement in the education. in order to achieve the object of qualitative improvement‘in education, the need for establishing a unit (nomenclature given as "cluster") of twenty five to thirty teachers was felt and thus in one school centre of a cluster was established and all the schools of a particular cluster are situated within the radius of 8 kms. For the purpose of bringing improvement in the quality of education a Cluster Academic Coordinator (for brevity “the Coordinator”) was appointed for solving the problems being faced by the teachers by way of l continuous monitoring and feed back. «, l 5. After introduction of the DPEP scheme while appointing the 1:. Coordinators in the year 1996-97, .the State Government appointed j i“ some of the teachers designating them as the Coordinators and ”it they were given the extra responsibility of supervision with regard if ' to imparting education and implementation of the programme. ‘ 6. it is not in dispute that the District Education Ofncer used tot nominate the concerned teacher,for their designation as the; Coordinator and then after approval by the Collector, the‘i Coordinators used to start their work. The main task of the Coordinators is to improve the system by monitoring and feed back method and to have proper coordination amongstthe schools of —-H._. the clusters. It is further not disputed that initially no extra payment whatsoever was being made to these Coordinators but since 2007- 08 they are being paid Rs. 275 per month as honorarium. lt is also not disputed that this honorarium is being paid to these Coordinators because they are required to visit various schools situated within the radius of 8 kms. It is this scheme which in the year 2a02-03 was renamed as Sarve Shiksha Abhiyan and the Coordinators are still performing their job as per their initial appointment. It is not disputed that from the year 1996 tili introduction of the Sarve Shiksha Abhiyan i.e. 2002-03, focus of the scheme was to impart education up to the students of class 5‘“ only and improve it qualitatively. However, after introduction of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, the scheme extended up to the students of class eight. Though some of the petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. their qualification is as such that they could have been appointed as Upper Division Teacher or Lecturer and could always teach the higher classes. 7. Contention of $hri Rajiv Shrivastava appearing for the petitioners in most of these petitions is that once the petitioners have been appointed as the Coordinators in the year 1996 onwards and have worked for about 13 years, they can not be removedfrom their post and if‘at all theState Government wants to fill up the posts of Coordinatorsfit is free to adopt whichever methodology it wants but the present position of the petitioners should not be disturbed. He has tiled various letters showing that the performance of the petitioners was found satisfactory and the authorities were directed not to engage the Coordinators in any other work so that the emciency of the performance remains unexposed to any adversity. He further submits that performance of thepetitioners as t Coordinators has been appreciated time and again and the specific directions were issued not to assign them any other work which ultimately becomes an obstacle in the work of Coordinators. Some: of these letters have also been issued by the Mission Directom‘ Raipur. He further submits that in some of the letters it hasbeenl l .._,7__ admitted by the Mission Director that it requires a lot of time to train the Coordinators and enhance their potential. He submits that if the Coordinators are engaged in some other field, the object of the a Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan will vanish in air. He submits that after their appointment as Coordinators the petitioners have undergone various trainings and after putting in hard tabour, they could be able to achieve the aim. His submission is that while imparting training to the Coordinators it is not only the petitioners who have spent their valuable time and worked hard, but the Govemment has also invested a lot of time and money in the same. His further submission is that there is no basis for introducing the new so called scheme and taking a decision to remove the old Coordinators and then to appoint the Coordinators afresh. According to him, the stand of the Government that performance of the petitioners was not satisfactory has no foundation because if any of the Coordinators is not doing well, he can always be removed as has already been done in certain cases. His submission is that the entire exercise being done anew is of no use and contrary to the object sought to be achieved. He submits that the Government has not substantiated its stand as to how the performance of the petitioners has been found to be unsatisfactory. / 8. lt is argued by Mr. Shrivastava that as per the condition of the advertisement (Anhexure“'P‘-2), applications are being invited from amongst the Teachers, shiksha Karmis Grade e ll. According to him,‘ the Teachers whether they are holding the post of Assistant Teacher or Upper Division Teacher or Head Master are entitled to participate in the examination. Word “Teacher” has been defined in Rule 2 (9) and that includes Lab Assistant Craft Teacher instructor Lecturer Assistant Teacher Professor and all other persons who are engaged in teaching work He argued that even in the policy matters the Court can interfere as the scope under Article 226 is not limited. He placed reliance on the decision of thei Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh and} i i i l W -,3_ others vs. Hazarilai ‘ and submits that as a result of change in legal parameters of judicial review, principal of unreasonabieness has been replaced by the doctrine of proportionality. 9. lt is further argued by Shri Rajlv Shrivastava Advocate that the State Government has the power to amend the rule but not retrospectively. To substantiate this argument he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of P.U. Joshi and others vs. Accountant General‘ Ahmedabad and others with Union of lndia and others vs. Basudeva Dora and others 2. in respect of this argument he further relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Marripati Naqaraia and others vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others 3 . As regards the fact that the petitioners have already undergone a special training, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another vs. U.P. Parivahan Niqam ShishukhsBerojqar Sanqh. and others ‘ and submits that preference should be given to the persons who have already undergone a training over the direct recruits in the matter of employment as such trained persons having invested time. energy. money etc. have the legitimate expectation and it should not be allowed to go waste. 10. Likewise, Shri/MateenuSiddiqui appearing for the petitioners in some of the petitions besides supporting the argument of Shri Rajiv Shrivastava Advocate, submits that letter dated 13.2.2009 which is the basis for conducting the examination in all the districts has been issued by the Under Secretary of the School Education Department and as this letter has been addressed by him to the Mission Director, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Chhattisgarh, it cannot be termed as a policy or the’direction under the scheme of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan because the School Education Department of the State Government is not empowered to issue cl 1 (2008) 3 SCC 273 2 Z (2003) 2 SCC 632 l l , 4 (2007) 11 scc 522 (1995) 2 scc 1 , —-Il(_. any such circular and at the most it can only be issued as per the requirement of Article 162 in the name of the Govemor. He further submits that in the letter dated 13.2.2009 (Annexure P-4) of Writ Petition No. 2913/2009 it has been mentioned that number of persons have aiso been appointed as the Coordinators on the recommendations of the District Education Officer who are not even qualified and are working as Assistant Teacher though no such instances have been given by the State Government. He submits that some of the petitioners are working as Head Masters but they have also been excluded from participating in the examination whereas merely on the basis of their experience in the profession they should have been allowed to participate in the examination because if viewed from any angle they are more experienced and qualified than Shiksha Karmi Grade II who have been permitted to participate in the examination. He submits that without the consent of Union of India, the State Government can not adopt any procedure for the appointment of Coordinators. It has been further argued that after excluding the Head Master and the Senior Coordinators, new persons would be appointed as Coordinators from amongst Shiksha Karmi Grade ll and the position would be that the senior teachers and head masters would be required to work under their juniors and particularly under Shiksha Karmis which is not the cadre of School Education Department. He sub'rnits that in the reply of respondent No.4 though it has been mentioned that if the Coordinators would also succeed in the examination, they would be given weightage in the interview but what weight would be given has not been claritied and no such criterion has been fixed for this purpose. He submits that the post of Assistant Teacher or the Head Master which was being C held by the petitioners have alreadylbe‘en filled up by appointing Shiksha Karmis against those posts and for all practical purposes l the appointment of the petitioners can be said to be against the post of Coordinators and they are no more deemed to be the teacher on the previous post. He also submits that some of the l‘ petitioners are working as Head Master and therefore, they can ‘ x” '3'! i i . l i l also teach the students up to class eight He further submits that the procedure to be adopted for appomtment of coordinators Is still the same as it was In case of the petitioners earlier 11. Shri P.P. Sahu and Shri Mahendra Dubey counsel for the petitioners in some of the petitions have adopted the argument advanced by Shri Rajiv Shrivastava and Shri Mateen Siddiqui advocates. However, they laid emphasis on the point that by one decision the Government can not remove all the Coordinators working since 1996 onwards and the Education Department can not direct the Mission Director of Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission to evolve any methodology for recruitment of the Coordinators. They also submit that even if an assistant teacher has acquired the experience as the Coordinator he has every right to partICIpate in the examination and to continue on the post 12. Per contra, Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State and Shri A.S. Kachhwaha appearing for the Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission submit that it is the domain of the respondents to decide as to how a particular post has to be filled up and what procedure is required to be adopted there for. It has been further submitted that the petitioners were appointed sometime in the year 1996-97 and at that time the scheme was only in respect of the students from Class 1 to 5 whereas after introduction of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan students up to class eight have also been included in the scheme and therefore the respondents were finding it difficult to get the better result from the present Coordinators who are admittedly either