यू पी टी ई टी से जुड़े मामलों के जानकार , श्याम देव मिश्रा जी द्वारा दी गयी जानकारी
शिक्षामित्र प्रकरण
शिक्षामित्रों के मामले में दायर हुई सभी रिट पेटीशन्स, जिनकी फाइल्स मैं इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय से बीते वर्ष निकलवा पाया था, निम्न हैं। काफी खोज-बीन भी सेक्शन से सर्वाधिक महत्वपूर्ण WRIT - A No. - 28004 of 2011 Santosh Kumar Mishra And Others Vs State Of U.P. And Others रिकॉर्ड में नहीं मिली, क्यों, ये मुझे आज तक समझ में नहीं आया।
इसे सर्वाधिक महत्वपूर्ण कारण कि सिर्फ इसी याचिका में शिक्षामित्रों के प्रशिक्षण की वैधता पर प्रश्नचिह्न लगाया गया था, वो भी इतने जोरदार ढंग से, की माननीय न्यायमूर्ति कृष्ण मुरारी ने 18.05.2011 को शिक्षामित्रों के प्रशिक्षण को प्रथमदृष्टया अवैध मानकर स्थगनादेश जारी कर दिया। (आदेश की प्रति संलग्न फाइल में यथास्थान है). बाद में SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1032 of 2011 State Of U.P. And Others Vs. Santosh Kumar Mishra And Others पर सुनवाई करते हुए न्यायमूर्ति आर के अग्रवाल और भर्ती सप्रू की पीठ ने 30.5.2011 को दिए जा रहे प्रशिक्षण से स्थगनादेश हटते हुए स्पष्ट किया की प्रशिक्षण की वैधता रिट पेटिशन के अंतिम निर्णय के अधीन होगी। (आदेश की प्रति संलग्न फाइल में यथास्थान है). बस यही से खेल शुरू हुआ।
इस मुख्य याचिका की सुनवाई के पुनः प्रारम्भ होते ही न्यायमूर्ति दिलीप गुप्ता ने 27.9.2011 को इस मामले को ऐसी याचिकाओं के झुण्ड संलग्न कर दिया जो उन शिक्षामित्रों द्वारा दायर याचिकाएं थी, जो किसी कारणवश सरकार द्वारा दिए जा रहे दो-वर्षीय प्रशिक्षण में चयनित होने से छूट गए थे और स्वयं को भी प्रशिक्षण में सम्मिलित किये जाने का निर्देश दिए जाने के लिए न्यायलय की शरण में गए थे। जाहिर है, इन याचिकाओं की प्रकृति और प्रवृत्ति में बहुत फर्क था।
1. WRIT - A No. - 50096 of 2011 Nav Prakash Singh And Others Vs State Of U.P. And Others (Ashok Khare)
2. WRIT - A No. - 50674 of 2011 Ajit Pratap Singh And Another Vs State Of U.P. And Others
3. WRIT - A No. - 50676 of 2011 Satish Chandra Vaishya And Others Vs State Of U.P. And Others
4. WRIT - A No. - 53589 of 2011 Rishi Kumar Mishra Vs State Of U.P. And Others
5. WRIT - A No. - 52878 of 2011 Arvind Singh And Others Vs State Of U.P. And Others
6. WRIT - A No. - 53210 of 2011 Jitendra Singh Vs State Of U.P. And Others
7. WRIT - A No. - 53914 of 2011 Manoj Kumar Singh And Others Vs State Of U.P. And Others
8. WRIT - A No. - 51295 of 2011 Anil Kumar And Others Vs State Of U.P. And Others (Ashok Khare)
9. WRIT - A No. - 52206 of 2011 Bhola Ram Pachori And Others Vs State Of U.P. And Others
10. WRIT - A No. - 50060 of 2011 Gyanendra Kumar Dwivedi And Others Vs State Of U.P. And Others
11. WRIT - A No. - 53501 of 2011 Hari Shankar And Others Vs State Of U.P. And Others
12. WRIT - A No. - 51243 of 2011 Sumit Kumar And Others Vs State Of U.P. And Others
13. WRIT - A No. - 28004 of 2011 Santosh Kumar Mishra And Others Vs State Of U.P. And Others 18.5.2011
इन सभी याचिकाओं की सुनवाई होती रही और 26.9.2011 को उपरोक्त सभी याचिकाओं के सन्दर्भ में निर्णय सुरक्षित कर लिया गया और लगा कि मानो अब न्याय होने ही वाला है पर यह निर्णय दिए जाने के लिए सुरक्षित नहीं किया गया था। लगभग 9 महीने बाद गुप्ता जी जागे और 6.7.2012 को पुनः सुनवाई शुरू कर दी। ऐसी सुनवाई, जो फिर हुई नहीं ! क्यों, कैसे? बस कयास लगाइये, प्रशिक्षण तो पूरा हो गया न ? अब नियुक्ति के विरुद्ध दायर याचिका में भी यही खेल हो रहा हो तो क्या ताज्जुब ?
WRIT - A No. - 28004 of 2011 Santosh Kumar Mishra And Others Vs State Of U.P. And Others को विपरीत प्रकृति और असमान स्वाभाव वाली इन याचिकाओं के साथ 27.9.2011 को जोड़ा जाना समझ से पर है, अगर याची की प्रार्थना पर, तो क्यों? अगर प्रतिपक्ष की मांग पर या न्यायालय द्वारा, तो याची द्वारा सुई को भूसे के ढेर में छिपाने की कोशिश का विरोध क्यों नहीं हुआ? आज तक सुई छिपी पड़ी है। देखिये, ये सुई जंग लगकर गल जाती है या किसी के चुभती है या किसी का फटा सिलती है
********************
Case Details By SDM ji :
Except the order of Writ Petition A No. 51215 of 2011, orders in 50096 of 2011, 50676 of 2011, 50674 of 2011, 52878 of 2011, 51295 of 2011, 51243 of 2011,
52206 of 2011, 50060 of 2011, 28004 of 2011, 53914 of 2011, 53589 of 2011, 53501 of 2011, 53210 of 2011 are compiled above.
* Text of Order in SPL APPEAL No. 1032 of 2011 State Of U.P. & Others Vs. Santosh Kumar Mishra & Others
The present special appeal has been filed against the interim order dated 18th May, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge
had stayed the effect and operation of the approval order dated 14th January, 2011 passed by the National Council for Teachers Education, New Delhi till further
orders. By the order dated 14th January, 2011 National Council for Teachers Education, New Delhi had granted approval to the proposal made by the State
Government regarding training of graduate 'Shiksha Mitra' through open and distance learning mode for providing Diploma in Elementary Education Course of
two years duration. The approval order dated 14th January, 2011 also lays down 14 conditions to be observed and followed by the State Government. It
appears that under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, enacted by the Parliament, free and compulsory elementary education
has been made compulsory for the children from classes 1 to 8. The shortage of teachers is being faced by the State of U.P. and in order to overcome it the State
Government has sent a proposal to the National Council For Teachers Education, New Delhi approving two years training course known as Diploma in
Elementary Education to graduate Shiksha Mitra to be appointed as teachers to teach the students from classes 1 to 5. The learned Single Judge has stayed the
operation of the approval order, thus, bringing the entire scheme to a stand still.
Sri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in effect 2 amounts to
allowing the final relief and also bringing to halt the scheme for providing free education to children under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009 as such the interim order which affect the development of the State ought not to have been passed and it would be another matter if the
writ petition is finally decided and the Court would have come to conclusion that the scheme approved by the National Council for Teachers Education, New
Delhi does not conform to various statutory provisions. He, thus, submitted that the interim order dated 18th May, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge
should be vacated. He further submitted that the aforesaid interim order has been passed in the writ petition filed by the 5 alleged unemployed B.Ed. graduates
on the ground that their chance to become a teacher will be adversely affected. He submitted the learned Single Judge ought not to have stayed an ongoing
training programme.
Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Special
Appeal No.10 of 2007, State of U.P. vs. Shailesh Kumar Dwivedi, decided on 4th September, 2009 such training programme cannot be implemented much less
approved by the National Council for Teachers Education. According to him, Special Leave Petition filed against the said order of this Court has also been
dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 26th March, 2010. He, thus, submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly stayed the approval order dated
14th January, 2011 passed by the National Council for Teachers Education, New Delhi.
We have heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. However, we refrain from making any comments on the merits of the matter and
only confining ourselves on thequestion of grant of interim order in such a situation. Apparently, the State Government had taken a policy decision to impart
training to graduate Shiksha Mitra in order to appoint them as teachers to teach the students of classes 1 to 5. Whether such a policy decision is arbitrary or
unreasonable or violate Article 14 of the Constitution 3 of India is to be seen at the time of final decision of the writ petition and by an interim order its
operation cannot be stayed because it affects a large number of persons that too only at the instance of a few person claiming themselves as unemployed B.Ed
graduates. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the order dated 18.5.2011 so far as it stays the effect and operation of the approval order dated
14th January, 2011 passed by the National Council for Teachers Education, New Delhi is liable to be vacated We accordingly, vacate the impugned interim order
dated 18.5.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge. The respondents may file counter affidavit within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two
weeks. The writ petition be listed before the learned Single Judge on 12th July, 2011 for final disposal. We may make it clear that the training being imparted to
Shiksha Mitra will be subject to the decision of the writ petition. The special appeal stands allowed.
** Text of Order inSPL. APPEAL DEF. No. - 622 of 2011 Anuj Kumar Pandey & Another Santosh Kumar Mishra & Other
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents.
Learned Single Judge has stayed the effect and operation of the approval order dated 14.1.2011 passed by the National Council of Teachers Education, New
Delhi, approving the proposal of the State Government for conducting Elementary Teacher Education Programme of two years duration through open and
distance learning mode, for training of untrained graduate Shiksha Mitra appointed by the State Government in elementary schools subject to conditions
mentioned therein.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench rendered yesterday on 30.5.2011, by which the Special Appeal was allowed
setting aside the interim order staying the effect and operation of the approval order of National Council for Teachers Education, New Delhi dated 14.1.2011.
The Division Bench in allowing the Special Appeal has observed that the State Government had taken a policy decision to impart training to graduate Shiksha
Mitras in order to appoint them as teachers to each the students of Classes I to V. Whether such a policy decision is arbitrary or unreasonable or violate Article
14 of the Constitution of India is to be seen at the time of final decision of the writ petition. By an interim order its operation cannot be stayed as it affects a
large number of teachers that too at the instance of a few persons claiming themselves as unemployed B.Ed graduates.
With the consent of Standing Counsel the matter was heard. Learned Standing Counsel supports the order in Special Appeal No. 1032 of 2011 as the Special
Appeal was filed by State of U.P.
Following the judgment dated 30.5.2011 in Special Appeal No. 1032 of 2011 State of UP and others vs. Santosh Kumar Mishra and others, this Special Appeal is
also allowed. The interim order passed by learned Single Judge staying the effect and operation of the order of approval dated 14.1.2011 passed by National
Council for Teachers Education, New Delhi is set aside. The writ petition shall be connected and listed for final hearing with similar matters which have been
fixed for hearing on 12.7.2011.
