Yarendra Singh Komarra v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1987 of 2017 • Jai Prakash Tripathi S/o Shri Neelkant Tiwari, Aged About 38 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher Panchayat, At Government Primary School Golamaal; R/o Village And Post Amlipadar, Block Mainpur, District Gariyaband

Versus

WPS No. 2009 Of 2017 • Yarendra Singh Komarra S/o Shri Madhu Singh, Aged About 38 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher Panchayat, At Government Primary School Godiyari, R/o Village Dendupadar, Tahsil Mainpur District Gariyaband

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat &

WPS No. 1993 Of 2017 • Mahendra Kumar Nayak S/o Shri Maganram, Aged About 35 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Teacher Panchayt Dongribhata, R/o Gram & Post Banjipadr, Block Mainpur, District Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh) WPS No. 1998 Of 2017 • Vedmal Bhati S/o Shri Bharat Ram, Aged About 35 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher Panchayat At Government Primary School Masterpara, R/o Village Bhatipara Tahsil Mainpur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh Rural Development, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Collector Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh

4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Mainpur District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh

WPS No. 2001 Of 2017 • Smt. Savita Jethe D/o Shri Bhuneshwar Rao, Aged About 40 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher Panchayat, At Government Primary School Usarijor; R/o Village And Post Amlipadar, Block Mainpur, District Gariyaband For Petitioners :

Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondents-State :

Shri Satish Gupta, GA for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 27/04/2017

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners would draw attention of the Court to Rule 9 (1) (b) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 (henceforth 'the Rules, 1997'), under which the petitioners' appointment was made, to highlight that petitioners' experience in the District Primary Educational Programme (DPEP) School is specifically included for allotment of marks for experience, however, the team of enquiry

officers have denied marks for such experience to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have obtained the experience from a government school, which is not permissible. According to him, there is no mention in the Rule that experience obtained in the government school will not be counted. Even otherwise, the Enquiry Committee has not considered that the DPEP School is specifically covered under the Rules. It is further submitted that based on such perverse reasoning, the Enquiry Committee has recommended for petitioners' removal from the post, therefore, the petitioners had to rush to this Court.

2. Learned State counsel would submit that the Enquiry Committee is probably of the view that upon reading of the entire Rule 9 (1) (b) of the Rules, 1997, the benefit of experience is to be granted to only such candidates who have acquired the experience from non government school.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the relevant Rule together with the State Government's communication dated 20.07.2007, it appears, the petitioners may be entitled for marks for having acquired the experience from DPEP School. In the memo dated 20.07.2007, the Government has categorically observed that a similarly placed candidate belonging to Block Devbhog, who had acquired experience from government primary school, is entitled for marks for experience.

4. Considering the entire facts situation of the case, instead of keeping these petitions pending, all the writ petitions are disposed of with a

direction to the concerned Jila Panchayat to consider the contents of Rule 9 (1) (b) of the Rules, 1997 and the State Government's communication dated 20.07.2007 at the time of taking final decision in the matter. In case of any adverse order against the petitioners, the same shall not be acted upon for a period of one month from the date of order.

Sd/- JUDGE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA ashu