IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUbICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT APPEAL N0. ^& /2010 APPELLANT (Petitioner) Uttara Kumar Yadav, aged about 37 years, son of Shri Netram Yada, R/o Village/Post Sambalpur, Tehsil Nawagarh, District Durg (C6) Vs RESPON&ENTS V^? ^<r^ \y^ ' ••''' . vw. ^•^^yy ^^:y .sfv<''y'^i^ y «. f^y ^.'/'' ,;s'1'-?" ^ ..u-.'hj- ,fi^HE^H Tf*,-^9 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Panchayat <& Social Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur. 2. Collector, Durg (C6) 3. Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh, Through the Chief Executive Officer, District Durg (C6) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 (1) OF THE CHHATTIS6ARH HI6H COURT (APPEAL TO bIVISION BENCH) ACT. 2007 f^"' Being aggrieved by order dated 30.3.2010, a copy of which is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE A-l, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court (Hon'ble Shri Justice Satish K Agnihbtri) in Writ Petition (S) No. 5588 of 2008 between Uttara Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh <& others, the appellant most humbly and respectfully begs to submit this writ appeal on the following facts and grounds;- FACTS OF THE CASE ^'•"yi^,^, ^"VT\'v. ^ ''!«,..^^ i^f^•^?^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Hon'ble Slu-i I.M. Quddusi, Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, Appellaat: Writ^ABpea!JIo.l3QZ2010 Uttara Kumar Yadav Vs. State of ChlLattisgarh and others Appearaace: Mr. Diaesh R.K. Tiwan, counsel for the appeUant. Mr. Viaay Harit, Dy. Advocate General, with Mr. Ajit Siagh, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respoudents 1 & 2. Writ Appeal under Section 2 (11 ofthe Chhattisisarh Hiedi Coiut (Appeal to Di^sjioaBeachlArt, 2006 ORAL ORDER (06.05.2010) PerJ.M.^UDDUSI.jJ Heard finally wifh fhe consent ofcounsel for the pardes. 3. This writ appeal has beeii ffled agamst fhe impugned order dated 30th March, 2010 passed by the leamed Single Judge in W.P (S). No.5558/2008 disinissmg the writ petition. 3. The wnt appeUaat was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-IS on 20th Jvly 2007 on probation of 3 years by tlte respondent Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh. On 16.02.2008 whenhe was wtokiag as Shiksha Karmi-III, he received a show cause notice to explaia the atlegations leveUed against him. regardiag subinission offake docuiaents enclosed along-with bis application for fhe recruitment of Shiksha Karrm Grade- \fl7. The writ appeUaat came with reply fhat no fake ^ocimient was subinitted by him. Thereafter, the District y' ^- ,f:?""">. .'^ '^ 'S&s''^, ^^/ '< .-^? 2- Education OfScer came to conclusion that there was ao niention of fhe experience certificate in fhe records and as such the experieace certificate was a fake docuiaent. The inatter was rcferred to fhe CoUector, who vide order dated 25.8.2008, found that the experience certificate issued in favour of the writ appeUaut was a genuiae docuiaent, but fhe CoUector has caaceUed his appointaient by fhe same order on fhe ground fhat he was not haviag miaimuin 8 luonths teachiug experience. In fact, fhe Selection Coniinittee was constituted to inake selection of Shiksha. Karmi Grade-SI ta accordaace with fhe rules namely ChhaWsgcirh Pancheiyat Shiksha Kamds (Recruttment and CondlUons ofSerwice) Rules, 1997. 4. Rule 5 provides for inethods of selection aad Recruitment. Clause (1) ofRule 5 further provides fhat RecruitDient to the cadre of Shiksha Karmis aftei the coitunencement of fhese rules shaU be made by direct recruitment by Selection as weU as by proinotion as speci&ed iu Schediile FV. CIause (9) of Rule 5 furfher provides allotment of inarks by the Evaluation Coinmittee after scrutiny of the applications of caadidates as contaiaed iu sub-clause (b) fhereof. Sub- clause(b) of Clause (9) of Rule 5 is relevaat here and quoted below; ''Maximuui 12 inarks for teachiag experience in Shiksha Guaraatee Schenie Center, Janbhagidan Schools, D.P.E.P. Altemati.ve Schools, Non-foroial Educaticin Center, cent-percent aided State Govenuiient and tn vffllage schools recognized by the Jaadpad Panchayat & Zila Paachayat on the followuig basis : -—— /^!^^. -— ^ a y :\ .f 1. Experience of one vear 2. Experience oftwo years 3. Experience ofthree years 5 inarks. 8 niarks 12 inarks (Miuimuiii of 8 inonths teaching session will be considered as one year). 5, A bare perusal of fhe provisions of Rule 5 would show fhat sub-clause(b )of Clause(9) thereof provides for inethod for awardiag fhe niarks for teaching expenence, accordiag t6 which, 5 inarks to be awarded to teaching experience ofone year, but ininimuxn of 8 inonths teachiag session wiU be considered as one year, mcaning thereby fhat ia case a candidate is haviug 8 inonths teachiug sessksn, he witl be given 5 niarks, which is nieant for one year experience. 6. The leamed Deputy Advocate General appearing ou behalfof the State/respondent 1 & 2 submits ffaat in fact fhe writ appellaat subnutted a certificate having oiily six inonfhs of experience. The selection Corainittee has wrongly awarded TiiTn 5 inarks countuig one year experience aad that is why he was not to be appoiuted as Shiksha Karrm and therefore, the selection was canccUed by fhe CoUector. 7. We have perused the records of the writ appeal as weU as writ petitton. 8. In fact, a certi&cate was issued on 24.03.1998 sigaed by 5 aufhorities namely Centre Head Master (Kendra Pradhan Pathak) Govt. F'rimary School, Hafhadadu; Head Master (Pradhaa Pathak), Primaiy School, Kharhari; Sarpaach, Gram Panchayat, Naudal, Vikas Khaad Nawagarh (Durg); Block Education Officer, Nawagarh, District Durg etc., in which, it was mentioned fhat the writ appeUant worked as K' "?.s'^Spin. . ^- 1 "E^. S Shiksha Karmi Grade III finin taking over fhe charge that is dated 24.10.1997 tiU his relieviag at Kharahan that is upto 30th April, 1998. This certificate was signed in ftie inonth of March wheiTeas iu fhe said certificate, it was nientioned fhat he worked till 30th of April, 1998 nieanmg tttereby fhat when the certificate was signed by fhe said of&cers, he was not relieved aud fhat is why we feel that on fhe basis of fheir usual practice fhat ftle session coiues to aa end on 30th April, the certificate dated 30th April 1998 was issued but, ia fact, he worked fhere at Kharhari tffl 01.08.1998 as appeared fi-om. certificate issued oa 11.12.1999 (Aiinexure P- 3) which was signed by 4 ofiBcers aad approved by Chief Executive Officer on 08.01.2007. Leamed counsel for the writ appeUaat has subinitted fhat whUe inakuig appUcation for participation ia selection of Shiksha Kanni Grade HI, ia question, the writ appellant has spect&caUy stated that he worked tiU 01.08.1998 aad was haviag inore fhau 8 inonths expeneiice. As that certificate was not available at fhat time whatever was available was subinitted by fhe appeUan.t. It also appears that the Selection Comiiuttee accepted fhe stateineat of the petitioner giving hiin 5 iiiarks of teachiag experience aad treating his experience as inore thau 8 inonfhs aad thereafter he was given appoiataient as Shiksha Karmi Grcule IE on beiag fouiid selected for the same. After gettmg fhe appointonent, fhe writ appeUant started worktag aad at fhis juiicture, after one year froia ttie date of appoiutDient, the order ofColIector caaceUiag fhe appointnien.t on fhe ground that fhe appeUaat ^I-^M-- _-.^-~- -.( was not haviug suf&cient experience to award 5 inarks would not be proper if ia fact fhe writ appellant was at Kharhari irom 24.10.1997 to 1.08. 1998 as mentioned ia the certificate issued by the aforesaid 5 responsible officers. Therefore, it was necessaiy for the CoUector to get verification before passing the order as to whefher the writ appeUant had actuaUy worked as Shiksha Kamn Grad.e-SI for more ttiaa 8 iiionfhs ia priiaaty school Kh.arhari, Kendrasala Hathadadu. If on conductuig enquiry he would have fouad that the writ appeUant was having inore fh.an 8 inonfhs experience, there was no question to caacel his appointment. 10. Therefore, we atlow this appeal in part and set aside the irupugned order dated 30th of Marcti, 2010 passed by the leamed siugle judge as also the order dated 25.8.2008 caacelmg fhe appointuient of appeUant passed by the Collector aad renut the inatter back to the CoUector. 11. The CoUector shall conduct an. enquiiy to ascertain fhe fact whefher the writ appellaat was haviug inore fhaa 8 inonfUs experience at the tuae when the selection was conducted. If it is found that he was not haviag sufficient experience, he niay pass orders accorduigly. [n case it is found fhat he was havuig experience for uiore tb.axi 8 inonths and ttie selection coaunittee has rightly awarded 5 inarks to him, he shall be reiastated forfhwifh iu service. However> witti regard to back wages aad. otiler benefits, th.e sanie sball be decided by the Collector himsetf as we are not iacliued to iuterfere iti th.at T'^O^ftT'n ^.^g^-^.^. "••'LES[?-i''"y^ /^<-..- ^•-^^^ ^^•M^^-s;^,-^^-^' f\) '?:••--" 13. Wifh. fhe aforesaid dircction/observations, fhis wri.t appeal stands disposed of at the adinission stage itsetf. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd//- -to^^1 Mishra