Shiksha Karmi is not a Government post: Chhattisgarh High Court

1AFRHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPURWrit PetitionNo.68221Smt.Sweta Singh aged about 35 years wife of Shri BasantPratap Singh occupation Service ­­­­ Petitioner Versus 1.State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Department ofSchool Education New Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan NewRaipur2.The Secretary Department of General Administration NewMantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Distt.Raipur3.The Director Directorate Public EducationNaya Raipur Distt.Raipur4.The Collector Distt.Bilaspur5.The Collector Distt.Surajpur6.The Joint Diretor School Division Bilaspur Distt.Bilaspur7.The District Education Officer District : Bilaspur8.The District Ecucation Officer District : Surajpur9.The Principal Government Higher Secondary School Lakhasar Block Takhatpur District : Bilaspur­­­­ RespondentsFor Petitioner :Mr.A.N.Bhakta and Mr.Vivek Bhakta AdvocatesFor Respondents State:Mr.Suyash Dhar Panel Lawyer Hon ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. AgrawalOrder on Board(Through Video Conferencing)28 1 20221.This writ petition is directed against the order dated23.11.2021passed by respondentNo.7 District Education Officer Bilaspur by which thepetitioner s appointment as Assistant Grade­III has beenrevoked by respondent No.7 holding that she was not 2eligible to be appointed on compassionate basis for thepost of Assistant Grade­III as her husband and herhusband s brother both were in roll of the State Governmentwhich bars her from compassionate appointment.2.It is the case of the petitioner that her father­in­lawManmohan Singh Pawar while working as Block EducationOfficer Surajpur died in harness on 16.12.2018 andthereafter the petitioner made an application on 7.1.2019for grant of compassionate appointment and ultimately witha delay of 2½ years she was granted compassionateappointment on 2.6.2021but thereafter shewas subjected to show­cause notice on 26.10.2021stating that her husband namely Basant Pratap Singhwas already working as Shiksha Karmi Grade­I w.e.f.30.8.2013 and her husband s brother namely AkhilendraPratap Singh was also working as Shiksha Karmi Grade­IIw.e.f. 16.7.2010 which she has suppressed and ultimately by the impugned order her appointment has been revoked. Itis further case of the petitioner that the petitioner shusband and the petitioner s husband s brother both wereShiksha Karmi on the date of sad demise of her father­in­law therefore they were not Government servant as on thatday and therefore revocation of her appointment is bad inlaw. 3.Return has been filed by the respondents State statinginter­alia that the petitioner s husband Basant PratapSingh and the petitioner s husband s brother Akhilendra 3Pratap Singh both were holding and working as Governmentservant on the demise of her father­in­law and therefore she was ineligible for appointment on the post of AssistantGrade­III on compassionate basis and she has suppressed thematerial fact and got appointment which has rightly beenrevoked by respondent No.7 which calls for no interferenceand the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4.Mr.A.N.Bhakta with Mr.Vivek Bhakta learned counsels forthe petitioner would submit that it is now been settled bythe judgment of this Courtin the matter ofHarnarayan Yadav v. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Raipur & Anr.1 which has been affirmed by the Division Benchof this Court in the matter of Harnarayan Yadav v.Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Chhattisgarh andanother2 in which it has been held that Shiksha Karmis arenot Government servant and they are not holders of civilpost therefore they cannot be treated as Governmentservant. They would further submit that since thepetitioner s both relatives i.e. husband and husband sbrother were Shiksha Karmis on the date of sad demise ofher father­in­law therefore they were not Governmentservant and as such the impugned order is liable to beset­aside.5.On the other hand Mr.Suyash Dhar learned Panel Lawyerappearing for the respondents State would submit thatthough the petitioner s husband and the petitioner s1 ILR 2017 Chhattisgarh 18642 ILR 2019 Chhattisgarh 639 4husband s brother both were Shiksha Karmis on the date ofdeath of her father­in­law but subsequently her husbandBasant Pratap Singh was absorbed in Government Departmenton 01.11.2020 and her husband s brother Akhilendra PratapSingh was absorbed on 1.7.2019 in Government Department andthey have been confirmed as Government servant. Therefore prohibition clause would apply and since two relatives arealready in Government service therefore the petitionerwas not eligible to be appointed on compassionate basis andas such the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6.I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties considered their rival submissions made herein­above andalso went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7.Admittedly the petitioner s father­in­law while working asBlock Education Officer Surajpur died in harness on16.12.2018 and the petitioner made an application on7.1.2019 for grant of compassionate appointment in terms ofrelevant and applicable policy dated 10.6.2013 read withpolicy dated 30.8.2016. According to that policy daughter­in­law is entitled for compassionate appointment afterdeath of her father­in­law and at that time thepetitioner s husband Basant Pratap Singh was working asShiksha Karmi Grade­I and her husband s brother AkhilendraPratap Singh was working as Shiksha Karmi Grade­II.8.Question for consideration as to whether Shiksha Karmi canbe considered as Government servant came­up forconsideration before this Court in the matter of Harnarayan 5Yadav(single Bench) in which this Court has heldthat Shiksha Kamriis not a Governmentservant and observed as under:­“15. Applying the principle of law laid down by theSupreme Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court inthe aforesaid judgments if the facts of the presentcase are examined it is quite apparent that thepetitioner was appointed on the post of ShikshaKarmi Grade­IIIunder the Rules of 2007. The saidRules were promulgated under Section 70(1) read withSection 95 of the Act of 1993. That rules were notframed in exercise of powers conferred under provisoto Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It isalso apparent that the petitioner was appointed onthe post of Shiksha Karmi Grade­III by JanpadPanchayat Bhatapara his appointing as well asdisciplinary authority is the Chief ExecutiveOfficer Janpad Panchayat Bhatapara and as such full administrative and disciplinary control vest inJanpad Panchayat Bhatapara. Merely because he hasbeen placed under the disposal of school owned bythe State Government he cannot claim that he is agovernment servant. It is also not in dispute thatthe petitioner is not entitled for protection underArticle 311 of the Constitution of India. Viewedfrom any angle it cannot be held that thepetitioner was appointed under the Rules promulgatedunder Article 309 of the Constitution of India andas such the petitioner having been appointed byJanpad Panchayat Bhatapara pursuant to the Rulesframed under the Rules promulgated under Section70(1) of the Act of 1993 and admittedly not entitledfor protection under Article 311 of the Constitutionof India. It cannot be held that the petitioner isgovernment servant and is entitled for agerelaxation." 9.The aforesaid order was taken to the Division Bench of thisCourt and the Division Bench of this Court in the matter ofHarnarayan Yadavhas affirmed the order of singleJudge holding that Shiksha Karmi is not the holder of acivil post and therefore he is not a Government servant.It was observed as under:­“21. Keeping the totality of the various 6constitutional provisions and the correspondingenactments including the Act of 1993 and the 2007Rules relating to appointment of the PanchayatTeachers this Court has no hesitation in coming tothe same conclusion as the learned single Judge thatthe Appellant cannot be treated as a GovernmentServant as he is not holder of a civil post underthe State but an appointee of a Panchayat which isan independent entity and has its own enactments andrules governing such appointees. The concessiontherefore which had been provided for in theadvertisement of age relaxation of additional threeyears to a Government servant cannot be extended tothe Appellant as he is not holder of a civil postunder the State and cannot be treated to be aGovernment servant to derive the benefit of agerelaxation.”10.Judgments rendered by Single Bench of this Court inthe matter of Harnarayan Yadavwas affirmed by theDivision Bench and SLPNo.12313 2019 against the orderof Division Bench was dismissed by the Supreme Court on1.7.2019 as such it is established that Shiksha Karmi isnot holder of a civil post under the State and therefore he is not a Government servant. 11.Now coming to the facts of the case it is quite vividthat the petitioner s husband namely Basant Pratap Singhand her husband s brother namely Akhilendra Pratap Singhboth were Shiksha Karmis on the date of death of herfather­in­law Manmohan Singh Pawar and even the date onwhich the petitioner made an application for grant ofcompassionate appointment on 7.1.2019 till then they wereworking as Shiksha Karmis and subsequently they have beenabsorbed in Government Department on 1.7.2019 and 1.11.2020respectively but that will not make the petitionerineligible for the reasons that the petitioner was eligible 7to be appointed on the date of sad demise of her father­in­law on 16.12.2018 for which the petitioner had already madean application on 7.1.2019 as on that date and immediatelythereafter her both relatives were working as ShikshaKarmis and they were not in Government service as it iswell established by principle of law laid down by thisCourt in Harnarayan Yadavcould not have beeninterdicted on the ground that subsequently the32 SCC 729 8petitioner s husband and her husband s brother both havebecome Government servant and in Government service byvirtue of absorption in Government Department and policyapplicable bars compassionate appointment on that ground. 15.Accordingly the impugned order dated 23.11.2021(Annexure P­1) passed by respondent No.7 revoking thepetitioner s order of appointment is hereby quashed. She isdirected to be reinstated on the post of Assistant Grade­III along with all consequential service benefits. 16.The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicatedhereinabove. No order as to cost(s). Sd ­ Judge B 9HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPURWrit PetitionNo.68221PetitionerSmt.Sweta Singh Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and othersblfy os kkldh lsod ugha gSa vkSj bl vk kkj ij vuqdaik fu qfDr dks jí ugha fd k tk ldrk gSaA 

Summary: Shiksha Karmis are not holders of the civil post, therefore they cannot be treated as government servants. Government post has been upheld by the High Court of Chhattisgarh through a single bench led by HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY S. AGARWAL in the case of Smt. Sweta Singh v. State  of Chhattisgarh (Writ Petition No. 6828 of 2021) Brief facts of the case are that the writ petition was filed by the petitioner when the order was passed by the respondent by which the petitioner’s appointment as Assistant Grade­III has been revoked stating that she is not eligible to be appointed on compassionate basis for the post as her husband and her husband’s brother both were in roll of the State Government which bars her from compassionate appointment. Petitioner further contended that her father-in-law Manmohan Singh Pawar while working as Block Education Officer, Surajpur died in harness on 16.12.2018 and thereafter the petitioner made an application on 7.1.2019 for grant of compassionate appointment and ultimately with a delay of 2½ years she was granted compassionate appointment on 2.6.2021, but thereafter she was subjected to show­cause notice on 26.10.2021 stating that her husband namely Basant Pratap Singh was already working as Shiksha Karmi Grade I w.e.f. 30.8.2013 and her husband’s brother namely Akhilendra Pratap Singh was also working as Shiksha Karmi Grade­II. On the other hand, respondents contended that the petitioner’s husband and the petitioner’s husband brother both were Shiksha Karmis on the death of her father in law, but subsequently, he husband was absorbed in the Government department on 1.11.2020 and her husband’s brother was absorbed on 1.7.2019 in Government department and they have been confirmed as Government servant. Therefore, the prohibition clause would apply and since two relatives are already in Government department and therefore petitioner would not be eligible on compassionate basis. The court relying on the judgements of this court (single Bench) in the matter of Harnarayan Yadav v. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Chhattisgarh and Another, which has affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court Harnarayan Yadav v. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Chhattisgarh and Another, held that Shiksha Karmis are not Government servant and they are not holders of the civil post, therefore they cannot be treated as a government servant. The Court ordered that as petitioner’s both relatives i.e. husband and husband’s brother were Shiksha Karmis on the date of sad demise of her father-in-law, therefore, they are not Government servant and as such, the impugned order for her removal should be set aside.