JUDGMENT
P.K. Tripathy, J.
1. Petitioners were engaged as Non Formal Instructors on different dates and they continued as such during prevalent of the scheme of Non-Formal Education. It is the admitted position on record that the said scheme is no more functional and operative. On the other hand, a new scheme has been adopted by the State Government in collaboration with the Union Government for universalisation of the elementary education and that scheme is known as ‘Swechhasebi Sikhya Sahayak Scheme.’ Annexure-5 is a copy of that resolution providing the details of the scheme including the eligibility criteria. At paragraph 4.7 in Annexure-5 it has been provided that :–
“N.F.E. instructors/supervisors and left out Sikhya Karmies may apply a long with others. They have to apply with others and compete on merit.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of the Court to both the schemes, states that the persons who had been engaged in the N. F. E. Scheme in the meantime have been age barred or otherwise not capable of competing with the eligible candidates as provided in Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayak Scheme and therefore they shall face the discrimination and unequal treatment because, of the above quoted provision in paragraph 4.7 of the Scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that eithet the petitioner be regularised in the new scheme or else some weightage be given at the time of selection keeping in view their past experience in N. F. E. Scheme.
3. Learned Senior Standing Counsel, Mr. Sarangi on the other hand states that the ‘Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayak Scheme’ being a new scheme and not the same scheme as N.F.E. Scheme, though there are certain similarities, therefore the claim for regularisation by absorbing them in the said scheme or for giving weightage to their experience is non-sustainab!e. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ application.
4. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and going through the schemes, this Court finds that though both the schemes are not same, but the purpose behind both the schemes have similarities on some aspects. When Articles 14 and 16 respectively guarantee equality before law and equality of opportunity in matters of employment under the State, opportunity to compete to all eligible persons by the date of coming into force the Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayak Scheme cannot be regarded as unconstitutional or per se illegal. On the other hand giving the N. F. E. Instructors employment as Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayak by excluding others having requisite qualification and eligibility shall be in utter violation of the above noted provision of law. See the case of Ashok Kumar and others v. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and others, reported in A. I. R. 1966 S. C. 976.
5. But keeping in view the prior engagement of the petitioners and similarly situated persons, who are left without any engagement because of the closure of the N.F.E. Scheme,
that aspect should be considered by the Government rationally and appropriately. In that respect though this Court does not find violation of the fundamental principles as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16, but for the sake of equity, as this Court observes, the State Government should consider that aspect and it possible find out the ways and means to provide them with meaningful competition. At the risk of repetition, this Court reiterates that any such ways and means, if any, must not be in violation of law in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Since that is a matter in the complete discretion of the State Government for consideration, the State Government should adopt a rational approach and keep balance with equal opportunity as provided in Articles 14 and 16 and, if possible, to provide some incentives to the persons like the petitioners who have already worked as N,F.E. Instructors.
6. As stated at the Bar, since the scheme relating to appointment of Swechhesevi Sikhya Sahayaks is going on with the selection process, therefore, the State Government is directed to take a decision within a period of one month hence if any incentive can be granted to N. F. E. Instructors and because of that no finality should be given to the pending selection process of Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks till the expiry of the aforesaid period of one month. It is made clear that where the process of selection is already over and engagement has been provided to any person in accordance with the Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayak Scheme, such cases are not to be re-opened because of any decision which the State Government shall take on the basis of the aforesaid observation. In this case also, as noted above, the petitioners cannot claim as of right for incentive. Therefore, any decision which the Government shall take relating to grant or non-granting of additional weightage for the past experience that shall be final and binding on the petitioners.
The writ application is disposed of accordingly.
7. Writ application disposed of.