- (1.) BEING aggrieved by the rejection of his challenge to the order of his repatriation to his placement agency i.e. M/s Human Resource Associates, Udaipur, the appellant -writ -petitioner seeks redress.
(2.) WE have heard Mr.Ravindra Singh, learned counsel for the appellant -writ -petitioner. The pleaded versions of the parties, in short, would be necessary to better comprehend the issues involved. According to the appellant -writ -petitioner, he was appointed as LDC under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme (for short, hereinafter referred to as "SSA") in the office of the Block Resource Centre Facilitator (for short, hereinafter referred to as "BRCF") Girwa District Udaipur on 9.1.2009. While he was engaged as such and rendering satisfactory services, a show cause notice dated 13.4.2011 was served on him asking him to reply to the queries made thereby. The queries were reiterated by a subsequent notice dated 19.4.2011. The appellant -writ -petitioner in his reply dated 25.4.2011 sought for copies of the orders of the store incharge contending that in absence thereof it was not possible for him to respond to the show cause notice. By a subsequent notice dated 28.7.2011 the respondents required the appellant -writ -petitioner to explain the shortage of Rs.6888/ - in the cash deposits, whereafter he submitted his explanation. He was also by a letter dated 30.8.2011 asked to explain the absence of some materials from the store to which he did submit his reply. According to the appellant -writ -petitioner, he thereafter applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and obtained the copy of the report based on an enquiry conducted of the accounts and the related records for the year 2010 -11 which revealed the illegal acts of Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma, Block Resource Centre Facilitator, Girwa. It was at that stage that to his shock and surprise he was served with an order dated 5.10.2011 whereby his services were repatriated to the aforementioned placement agency. Contending that the impugned action was illegal and that the same had been taken without affording him a reasonable opportunity, he approached this Court seeking intervention in the exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) THE respondents no.2 to 5 in their reply while admitting that the appellant -writ -petitioner was appointed in the office of the BRCF, Girwa, Udaipur on 9.1.2009 questioned the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of being laden with the disputed questions of fact. They averred as well that the Rajasthan Council of Elementary Education Society registered under the Rajasthan Society Registration Act, 1958 of which Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan is a project, was not an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus, was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. According to them, the appellant -writ -petitioner was appointed through a placement agency to render his services with SSA on a contract basis for a fixed term and subject to the terms and conditions as fixed by such agency. They alleged that the appellant -writ -petitioner was found guilty of committing embezzlement and though asked for he having failed to provide any explanation, his services were returned to the placement agency. The respondents referred inter -alia to the communciations addressed to the appellant -writ -petitioner making queries with regard to shortage of Rs.6888/ - in the cash deposit, physical verification of the office stock, demand register as well as non - compliance of the orders of the superior authorities of SSA together with the inspection report to reinforce their plea of involvement of the appellant -writ -petitioner in grave financial irregularities in his day to day functioning. They averred as well that thorough deliberations on the issue had preceded the decision to return his services and that eventually the order to that effect was passed on a decision being taken in that regard by the concerned District Project Coordinator.;