Item No.22. DJ/-
SBCWP NO. 7231/2010
Jawari Lal Prajapat & Ors. Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors.
Order dt: 04th August, 2010
1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
ORDER
(1) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7231/2010
Jawari Lal Prajapat & Ors. Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors.
&
(2) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7232/2010
Shaitan Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors.
&
(3) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7233/2010
Shiv Dutt Singh Charan & Ors. Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER ::: 04th August, 2010
PRESENT
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
REPORTABLE
Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, for the petitioners.
---
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length at
admission stage.
2. The petitioners, who are Teachers Grade-III, are working
on deputation under the Rajasthan Council for Primary Education in
‘Sava Shiksha Abhiyan’ have invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of
this Court against the order passed by the Commissioner of the
Rajasthan Elementary Education Council vide Annex-4 dated
12.05.2010, and consequential order passed by the Additional District
Project Coordinator vide Annex-5 dated 28.05.2010 which was
passed to give effect to an order Annex-2 dated 05.06.2008 passed
by the Secretary to the Government, Education Department, Jaipur
Item No.22. DJ/-
SBCWP NO. 7231/2010
Jawari Lal Prajapat & Ors. Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors.
Order dt: 04th August, 2010
2/8
addressed to Commissioner of ‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’, about two
years ago.
3. The grievance of the petitioners raised in the present writ
petitions is that they are working on deputation as CRCF (Cluster
Resource Centre Facilitator), and as per scheme of ‘Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyan’ upon deputation they were to discharge certain duties,
which are specified in the Circular 2008-09 (Annex-1) on record,
issued by the said Rajasthan Council for Primary Education under the
‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’, like holding meetings of various schools
under that cluster or group, inspect such schools, make reports on
the working of such schools and send necessary reports to the
concerned authority, namely, Block Resource Centre Facilitator
(BRCF).
4. The project of ‘Sava Shiksha Abhiyan’ is a Government
of India Flagship Programme for achievement of Universalization of
Elementary Education (UEE) in a time bound manner, as mandated
by 86th Amendment to the Constitution of India making free and
compulsory education to the children of 6-14 years age group, a
fundamental right. In order to implement the said ‘Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyan’ the teachers of the Government schools like the petitioners,
were deputed to carry out the specified duties under that scheme as
would be borne out from the said Circular.
5. Vide Annex-2, communication dated 05.06.2008 marked
as ‘Most Important’, the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan,
Item No.22. DJ/-
SBCWP NO. 7231/2010
Jawari Lal Prajapat & Ors. Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors.
Order dt: 04th August, 2010
3/8
School Education communicated to the Commissioner, ‘Sarva
Shiksha Abhiyan’, Jaipur that the administrative control of CRCF and
BRCF would be henceforth as specified in that communication with
immediate effect. The BRCF personnels were to be under the
administrative control of Block Elementary Education Officer (BEEO)
whereas CRCF personnels, like the present petitioners, were to be
under the administrative control of the Nodal Headmaster of the
concerned Cluster of the schools.
6. After lapse of about two years, the said Commissioner of
‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’ issued the impugned order Annex-4 dated
12.05.2010 referring to the said letter of 05.06.2008 giving effect to
the said order dated 05.06.2008. He directed that hence forth the
CRCF personnels like the petitioners, would be under the
administrative control of the concerned Nodal Headmaster of the
concerned Cluster of the schools. By the said administrative control,
the Commissioner in his impugned communication (Annex-4) dated
12.05.2010 specified that such CRCF personnels will mark their
attendance in the attendance register at the concerned cluster of the
school headed by the said Nodal Headmaster, their weekly travel
plan would be approved by the said Headmaster, their travel bills will
also be verified by the said Nodal Headmaster and their report on the
inspection of various schools maintained in a Diary will also be
counter signed/verified by the said Nodal Headmaster; and after such
verification of their travel plan, travel bills etc., the said bills will be
Item No.22. DJ/-
SBCWP NO. 7231/2010
Jawari Lal Prajapat & Ors. Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors.
Order dt: 04th August, 2010
4/8
forwarded to the BRCF for the needful payments. A consequential
order was issued by the Additional District Project Coordinator, Sarva
Shiksha Abhiyan (Respondent No.5) as 28.05.2010 to the same
effect.
7. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of
present writ petition challenging these two orders and also the earlier
order dated 05.06.2008 passed by the Secretary to the Government
of Rajasthan, School Education (Annex-2).
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kuldeep Mathur
taking the Court through these impugned orders as well as the duties
assigned to the various persons working at different levels in the said
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan vide Annex-1, urged that CRCF the
petitioners, who were reporting earlier to the BRCF, are now made
subject to administrative control of the Nodal Headmaster of the
Cluster whose school may itself be the subject to the inspection by
the petitioners as CRCF and in case their report is adverse to the
said school, the administrative control by the said Nodal Headmaster
of the Cluster cannot be effective and at the same time, the
administrative control of the said Headmaster will create so many
hurdles in the effective discharge of the duties by the petitioners. He
further submitted that the duties assigned in the Circular did not
envisage any such intervention of the said Nodal Headmaster, when
such Circular was issued for the year 2008-09 and again on latest
Circular relating to Supervision and Monitoring, issued for the
Item No.22. DJ/-
SBCWP NO. 7231/2010
Jawari Lal Prajapat & Ors. Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors.
Order dt: 04th August, 2010
5/8
Session 2010-11 vide Annex-2 dated 05.06.2008.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended
that the channel of reporting by CRCF to BRCF and BRCF further
reporting to BEEO was the proper channel and the Nodal
Headmaster had administrative control over the CRCF present
petitioners hitherto, and there is no justification for this change of the
administrative method by the Respondent- State and same being in
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India being arbitrary,
deserves to be quashed by this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
10. Having examined the scheme of ‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’
with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner and after
going through the Circular Annex-1, for the year 2008-09, and later
Circular for year 2010-11 and impugned orders, this Court is unable
to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners.
11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order issued
by the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, School Education
on 05.06.2008 was merely an administrative reform and introducing
the intervention of the Nodal Headmaster of the concerned Clusters,
the State Government only intended to provide for better control and
more effective checks on the working of the present petitioners
CRCF. It is simply a Policy decision of the State Government and no
arbitrariness in the same is seen by this Court. The concerned
Item No.22. DJ/-
SBCWP NO. 7231/2010
Jawari Lal Prajapat & Ors. Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors.
Order dt: 04th August, 2010
6/8
Commissioner of the ‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’ coming out his
slumber, as it were, took two years to implement the said Policy
decision of the State Government communicated to him vide Annex-2
dated 05.06.2008 itself is a serious matter of concern for this Court.
His decision to implement an administrative reform after two years of
the said communication beats the snails speed. If the Education
system in our country is suffering today, it is because of these kind of
authorities who take two years to implement a reform in the Policy for
better administrative control. The said Commissioner vide Annex-4
dated 12.05.2010 boldly gives reference to the order dated
05.06.2008 of the Secretary and issues the direction to give effect to
that order without even caring to explain the delay and as to why it
has taken so long for him to implement the said Policy decision of the
State Government. It is beyond the pale of doubt that State
Government through its personnels, including the teachers and the
present petitioners is empowered and duty bound to implement the
‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’, a flagship programme of Government of
India as stated above and when the said reform was implemented the
petitioners, up in arms, in an absolutely thoughtless and reckless
manner approached this Court, invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction
for quashing of such administrative reform and a simple policy
decision, one fails to understand what prejudice can be caused to the
petitioners, if they are made subject to the administrative control of
the Nodal Headmaster of the concerned Cluster of the schools
Item No.22. DJ/-
SBCWP NO. 7231/2010
Jawari Lal Prajapat & Ors. Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors.
Order dt: 04th August, 2010
7/8
instead of reporting to BRCF as earlier done by them. It can neither
amount to change of service conditions, as contended by learned
counsel, nor the petitioners can be said to have any vested right in
administrative control by a particular authority or superior. The
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioners may have to make a report adverse in the interest of the
concerned school itself, which is headed by the same Nodal
Headmaster under whose administrative control they are now placed
and, therefore, that situation may effect affect their working adversely,
is thoroughly misconceived to be rejected out of hand. If the
petitioners are bonafide, working honestly with sincerity, they are
expected to be bold enough to report the actual working of that
school even to the concerned Headmaster himself who is their
administrative authority. If anything untoward is done by such
Headmaster out of bias for such adverse reporting, the petitioners are
not remedi-less in the matter and there are superior authorities in the
Department of State Government to look after their grievances in
case same arise in implementation of the said administrative Policy.
12. It is unfortunate indeed that implementation of
educational scheme, which is the constitutional mandate as per
Article 21-A and Compulsory and Free Education Act having been
enacted by the Parliament, that intervention of the Courts in Article
226 of the Constitution of India, is invoked for such so-called petty
grievances, which in fact are really intended to make that scheme
Item No.22. DJ/-
SBCWP NO. 7231/2010
Jawari Lal Prajapat & Ors. Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors.
Order dt: 04th August, 2010
8/8
more effective. This Court should guard itself against such
intervention sought by the teachers-petitioners who instead of
discharging their duties faithfully and sincerely on the field and in the
schools, seek to challenge every such step taken by the responsible
authorities of the State Government, every now and then and for
every petty change in Policy for the fall of the Hat as they say. It is
well settled legal position that Policy decisions of the State
Government cannot be interfered by the Courts in extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless such
Policy decisions are demonstrably shown to be perverse, shocking
the good conscience of the Courts, which renders them fail the acid
test under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
13. Accordingly, while expressing its anguish over the
sluggish speed with which the Commissioner of the said ‘Sarva
Shiksha Abhiyan’ has acted in the matter and deprecating the same,
the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are
found to be wholly devoid of merit and in the considered opinion of
this Court, these writ petitions in fact deserve dismissal with
exemplary costs. However, the same is spared for the time being.
14. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. Copy of this
order be sent to the respondents immediately.
(DR. VINEET KOTHARI), J.
DJ/-
22- to 24
