/"t p.B.' Pr°. dateo...--- • : IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) Writ Appeal NO.A.5..S..../2009 , ^^&s^1^ ::S^:s§']i5%::-v (Petitioner, in writ Petition) Vipin Kumar Verma Aged about 46 Years S/o Shri Shiv Baksh Verma R/o- Behind High Court of Chhattisgarh Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: (In writ petition) t. 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 ExecutiveOfficer Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. District Project Co-ordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Beside Collectorate, Bilaspur (C.G.) ^ m':'»!. i- WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 OF SUB - SECTION f 11 OFTHE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT FAPPEAJ- TO DIVISION BENCH1 ACT. 2007 •^o HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH : BILASPUR W^A^ N0^271 of2009 AppeUant Ishwar Prasad Tiwari Versus Respondents Union oflndia& others W,_A, No, 277 of 2009 Jayjayram Tiwari & others Versus Respondeuts Union of India 8s others W.A. No. 298 of 2009 Vipin. Kuinar Veiina Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers W._A, No._300 ot~2009 Appellaat Triviki'am Pradhaii Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh 8;, others WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1) QF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT fAPPEAL, TO__DIVISION BENCH) ACT. 2007 DB: Hon'ble Mr. I. M. Quddusi, &. Hon.'ble Mr. N. K. Agarwal, JJ. Shri P. P. Sahu, Shri. Saadeep Dubey and Shri Mateen. Siddque, Advocates for the appetlant. Ms Neeliiua Venua, Advocate for fhe Union of India. Shri Kisbore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General for the respondents/ State, Shri A. S. Kachwaha, Advocate for the Mission Director, State Project Office and Disttict Project Coordinator, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission. ( Passed on this 5& day ofJuly, 2010 ) 1. Heard learaed couiisel appearing fbr fhe parties. ,•/< 'fe 2. These V/rit 5. 19.8.2009, 2913/2009 ;als ( W.A.No.s 271, 277, 298 aud 300 of 2009 ) by fhe appeUauts challeiiging the order dated by ttie leai-ned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. ofher conneeted inatters. 3. Brieffacts offhe case ai-e that ffae Govemm.ert.t oflndia, introduced a scheme namely Universal Elementary Education Project (tl4 f$IW til4ul'T! «{>•{"! ^ f^ ^pf'^'T ). The book let af&gTfe TR PRR ^fwfri) regarding niles were issued by ttie Miuisfry of Huiuau Resources Developinent, Govemnient of India ia 2004. The object of fhe scheine was to provide eleiuentary education to aU childrea froin fhe age of 6 to 14 years up to 2010. For impleinentatiou of fhe scheine fhe posts of Cluster Academ.ie Coordiaator were created. The scheme provided that fhe State Govenuneut shail also prspare a schenie for fhe State and District Level. Leanied counsel for the State Goveniment states fh.at fhe Teachers would be seut ou deputation subject to maxmiuin of five years stay ou fhe post of Cluster Acadeinic eoonluiator. Further, provisions for selectiou of Teachers for senduig on the post of Cluster Acadeinic Coorduiator were also laid down bv fhe State Goverument. The contention was raised betbre leamed Siagle Judge that the State Goverrunent has no jiuisdiction to iaterfere wifh ttie scheiae aiid to frame Rules and also to lay down procedure for appouitment etc., as the scheine is of ftie Govenunent of India. Learaed Sitigle Judge has elaborately discussed the inatter aiid disittissed fhe writ petitions. /•' -z 6. The Secretary of the State Govemia.ent is ex-officio Director of the Mission. Further, Rajeev Gandlii Abhiyan of fhe State level is a registered society under the provisions of ttte Society Registt-aton Act, flierefore it is but natural that auy actfcon, which M to be ta-ken io. respect of the said institution, is to be taken by the State under the Society Registration Act. Therefore, flie iutertereuce of the State Govenunent is very m.uch relevaat The Central Goverament cannot Biake Rules for laakiag appohitment or developiuent of fhe infrastructure, supervision offhe inission aad action taken thereon. 7. The State Goverament issued an advertisement to fill up fhe posts of Cluster Academic Coordinator on deputation froiu aniougst Assistarit Teacbers, Head Masters, Upper Division Teachers, but if senior persons, working as Teachers are avaUable, there is no question of considermgTeachers workmg ia lower pay scale. 8. In view of the above, we do not find aay illegality or iinpropriely to iaterfere tn the impugned order passed by ttie leamed Siagle Judge, which we afBmi. 9. The writ appeals are niisconceived aud fherefore are disinissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Thakur