Shiksha Mitara / Allahabad Highcourt - SM Appointment and Right To Education Act

Shiksha Mitara / Allahabad Highcourt - SM Appointment and Right To Education Act, No Relief

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 30

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 533 of 2013

Petitioner :- Smt. Anita Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Secy & Ors.
Petitioner Counsel :- Ashok Kumar Rai
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh,Mrigraj Singh

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
Petitioner in the present case requests for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur, respondent No.3 to appoint the petitioner on the post of Shikshamitra in pursuance of order dated 19.07.2006 passed by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur. 



On earlier occasion, it it true that the order dated 19.07.2006 had been passed by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur in favour of the petitioner for offering him appointment on the post of Shikshamitra. Said order had been subject matter of challenge in writ petition No.41349 of 2006, Ramesh Chandra Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others and this Court had proceeded to stay the operation of the said order passed by the District Magistrate. Aforementioned order has been finally decided vide judgment and order dated 26.09.2012. Operative portion of the said judgment is being quoted below:
"Considered the submission of counsel for the parties. By interim order dated 19.7.2006, the operation of the order passed by District Magistrate was stayed. However, that order was with respect to selection of respondent no. 5 and none has been been appointed as yet. Since none has been appointed and sent for training hence no one is entitled to be appointed in view of the Government Order dated 2.6.2010 by which the fresh engagement of Shiksha Mitra in view of the Right to Education Act 2009 has been stopped. In view of the fact, no such direction can be issued, the judgment and order passed in the case of Tarun Prakash Pandey was also considered and affirmed in subsequent Special Appeal Defective No. 38 of 2011 Vikas Kumar Malviya. Hence in view aforesaid discussion, no direction has to be issued at this stage for appointment of the petitioner though at that time in view of the Government Order dated 10.10.2005 and on the basis of quality point marks and experience, the petitioner was entitled for appointment. As far as the subsequent Government Order dated 24.4.2006 is concerned that was not applicable with retrospective effect. Hence, if there is any appointment in view of the earlier selection list then the case of the petition shall be considered as he had obtained highest quality point marks.

With the aforesaid observation, present petition is finally disposed off."
Petitioner at this stage is insisting before this Court that order dated 19.07.2006 had been passed in his favour and the said order has not been set aside, as such he is entitled to be offered appointment� on 
-2- 
the post of Shikshamitra.� There appears to be complete misconception in the mind of the petitioner. This Court has proceeded to decide the writ petition� vide judgment and order dated 26.09.2012 making it clear that with respect to selection of respondent no. 5 and none has been been appointed as yet., and� since none has been appointed and sent for training hence no one is entitled to be appointed in view of the Government Order dated 2.6.2010 by which the fresh engagement of Shiksha Mitra in view of the Right to Education Act 2009 has been stopped. Thus, the judgment is clear and categorical that appointment on the post of Shikshamitra on account of Government Order dated 02.06.2010 has been stopped. Once such is the factual situation, then in view of the judgment dated 26.09.2012, no relief or reprieve can be granted to the petitioner.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.1.2013
SRY


Source : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=2293444