JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pradeep Kant, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants Sri Brij Raj Tripathi and Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, for respondent No. 5 and Sri M.M. Asthana, learned Counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. These are two special appeals, both filed by Sri Pramod Kumar Singh and Meenu Singh. 2. Special Appeal No. 642 of 2007 has been filed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20th July, 2007 whereas Special Appeal No. 783 of 2007 has been filed against the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge dated 15th May, 2007. The latter Special Appeal is thus barred by limitation for few months. An application for condonation of delay has been filed explaining the reasons for delay. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondents has no serious objection in condoning the delay. We also feel that in view of the controversy involved in the two Special Appeals, the matter requires adjudication by the learned Single Judge as the claim for either party has not been considered on merits by the learned Single Judge. Two writ petitions were filed, one each by the appellant as well as by the respondent; the respondent challenged the order of appointment of the appellants and also by the appellants claiming renewal of their appointments, quashing the steps taken for fresh appointment. 4. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the appeal. 5. The matter relates to the appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra. It appears that the appellants Pramod Kumar Singh and Ms. Meenu Singh as well as the respondent Smt. Sudha Singh, all applied for the post of Shiksha Mitra. The appellants were selected for training and as per the case of the appellants they completed their training and are working as such. When the session came to an end i.e. 2006-07 the appellants claimed renewal whereas in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 12 (SS) of 2007 in re : Smt. Sudha Singh v. State of U.P. and others, steps for fresh appointment were taken. It was the case of the appellants that their renewal was ordered on 31.5.2007 for the session 2007-08. Later on in pursuance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 12 (SS) of 2007 dated 15.5.2007 it appears that the proceedings for making appointment afresh were initiated. It was the case of the appellants that their renewal was ordered on 31.5.2007 for the session 2007-08. Later on in pursuance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 12 (SS) of 2007 dated 15.5.2007 it appears that the proceedings for making appointment afresh were initiated. Feeling aggrieved by the said action, the appellants Pramod Kumar Singh and Ms. Meenu Singh filed Writ Petition No. 4021 (SS) of 2007 raising their grievance that their renewal has already been effected and that there cannot be any fresh appointment. 6. The learned Single Judge whose attention was drawn to the order dated 15.5.2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 12 of 2007 in re : Smt. Sudha Singh v. State of U.P. and others, observed that the aforesaid order has not been challenged by the appellants and the Court cannot pass any order against the order passed by the Bench of Co-ordinate jurisdiction, therefore, no such adjudication is possible. The learned Single Judge, however, further observed that there is claim and counter claim between the parties that forgery has been committed in the earlier selection or in order to give rest to all the speculations, and doubts the Court passed the order dated 15.5.2007 with full understanding that fresh selection be made and accordingly fresh selection has been ordered. 7. So far the view of the learned Single Judge regarding non-interference or not passing an order which may run contrary to the order passed by a Bench of Co-ordinate jurisdiction is concerned, does not call for any interference and cannot be assailed. If a Bench of Co-ordinate jurisdiction has taken a particular view particularly between the same parties and in respect of same controversy involved, unless that order is challenged in higher forum or is set aside in review, the Bench of Co-ordinate jurisdiction would not be adjudicating upon the said judgment or order. But the observation of the learned Single Judge that the order dated 5.5.2007 was passed (in Writ Petition No. 12 (SS) of 2007) in order to give rest to all speculations because there was claim and counter claim between the parties that forgery has been committed, and therefore, to clear all doubt fresh selection was ordered, does not flow from the order passed by the learned Single Judge (D.P. Singh, J.) in the writ petition filed by Smt. Sudha Singh. The reasoning aforesaid thus, does not stand substantiated by the reasons given in the order of the learned Single Judge in writ petition of Sudha Singh. No doubt such an allegation might have been made but the Court passed the order and decided the writ petition on day one on the presumption that there is no provision of renewal to the appointment of Shiksha Mitra which appointment is made only for a year and therefore, the candidature of all eligible persons will be considered. Learned Single Judge, thus, did not enter into the merits of the claim of the parties in the present writ petition and did not touch the merit as to whether the appointment of the appellants were rightly made or not. 8. At this juncture it would also be relevant to mention that Smt. Sudha Singh though challenged the appointment of the appellants in her writ petition but did not implead them as a party to the writ petition. The learned Single Judge was not made aware that any order passed in such writ petition was bound to adversely effect the incumbents who have been selected, and who might have been appointed as well and in the absence of these persons, no such order could have been passed and in any case the petition could not have been disposed of finally. 9. In regard to the fact that the appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra is only for a period of one year (one session) and such appointment cannot be renewed, suffice it would be to mention that since originally, the appointment of the appellants was challenged in the writ petition of Smt. Sudha Singh, it was necessary that after impleading the appellants, opportunity should have been given to them to put their case and thereafter final verdict has to be recorded either upholding the appointment, if they were found to be in order or to hold otherwise. This having not been done, the question of renewal or continuance looses significance but the fact remains that unless the appointment is set aside, no third person can have any right to claim his/her appointment in place of the appellants. 10. We would like to further place on record that there is a Government order dated 10th October 2005 which permits renewal of appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra. 10. We would like to further place on record that there is a Government order dated 10th October 2005 which permits renewal of appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra. Sri M.M. Asthana, appearing for Basic Shiksha Adhikari does not dispute that renewals are being made and that the aforesaid Government order is applicable in the present scheme also. 11. Apart from the fact that the Government order does permit renewal of appointment of Shiksha Mitra, it is also to be noted that Shiksha Mitra Scheme has been made to provide education in the village and rural sectors. It is not the scheme solely for the purpose to give employment to the local inhabitants, who qualify for the purpose but largely, it is a scheme for providing literacy and education to the inhabitants of the locality and the area. The qualification, the eligibility and the manner of appointment of Shiksha Mitra have thus been made in a manner so that the same may suit to the local climate and local atmosphere. The honorarium which is paid, is not the salary, but is only a remuneration for the work done and to propagate the scheme of education in the villages and rural areas. 12. Appointment of Shiksha Mitra is done by adopting a detailed procedure and in fact it is a post of selection. A long process has to be adopted while making selection, which starts from the issuance of advertisement, duly published in the newspaper giving down the eligibility conditions including age restriction, the requirement of domicile certificate, income certificate and other relevant documents. The selection is done by the Gaon Shiksha Samiti and then endorsed by the District Level Committee. The Gram Pradhan is the Chairman of Village Level Committee, whereas the District Magistrate is the Chairman of District Education Committee. The approval is finally granted by the District Education Committee, of which the District Magistrate, is the Chairman. It is thereafter that the selection is approved and the person selected, is sent for training of one month duration. After the successful completion of training, the incumbent is appointed as Shiksha Mitra. In the appointment order usually and normally it is stated that the appointment is made till the end of academic session. 13. It is thereafter that the selection is approved and the person selected, is sent for training of one month duration. After the successful completion of training, the incumbent is appointed as Shiksha Mitra. In the appointment order usually and normally it is stated that the appointment is made till the end of academic session. 13. The learned Counsel for the respondents namely; Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sri M.M. Asthana, clarifies the position and says that initially though in the scheme, it was provided that the appointment shall be made for one academic session, but later on, this has been clarified by the Government order dated 10"1 October 2005 which makes a provision for renewal of the said appointment. Even otherwise, if selection of Shiksha Mitra is to be made after a detailed specified process for selecting, the most suitable and appropriate person for the post, such appointment cannot be continued to only one academic session. The recital in the appointment order that the appointment is for 11 months or for one academic session, would not divest the right of such person appointed to continue on the post till, of course, for any reason attributable to him/her, may be misconduct, inefficiency or so to say termination of her/his appointment for any other valid reason his/her working cannot be interfered with. The continuance of the selected person is also important for the purpose of avoiding corruption and unnecessary and uncalled for interference by third parties and influential people and also for avoiding methods and tools, so as to dislodge the incumbent, who has been appointed after thorough selection for accommodating another person in the very next year. 14. It is a cardinal principle of law that if a person has been appointed for one academic session and if the said post is to continue and the work is to be taken for the same purpose in the same institution or school, such a person cannot be replaced by another person who is to be appointed again for only one academic session, nor he can be asked to leave for giving way to another fresh appointment. 15. In view of the own statement of the Counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari that by means of Government order dated 10th October, 2005 provisions for renewal of appointment has already been made in the scheme, we need not enter into this question any further. 16. 15. In view of the own statement of the Counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari that by means of Government order dated 10th October, 2005 provisions for renewal of appointment has already been made in the scheme, we need not enter into this question any further. 16. In the instant case the appointment was given after the issuance of the Government order dated 10th October, 2005, and therefore, also there cannot be any doubt that the plea of renewal of appointment was fully applicable in the instant appointment. 17. In view of the finding recorded above, with respect to the right of renewal of the person, who has been appointed as Shiksha Mitra for the following session, coupled with our finding that the appellants who was directly to be effected by any order which might have been passed in the writ petition filed by Smt. Sudha Singh, were not impleaded as a party in the writ petition, the order dated 15.5.2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 12(SS) of 2007 (D.P. Singh, J.) is liable to be set aside, only on this ground, which is hereby set side. 18. For the reasons that the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition of the Appellants i.e. W.P. No. 4021 (SS) of 2007 has dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that earlier judgment passed in the case of Smt. Sudha Singh has not been assailed by them, the order passed in the writ petition filed by the appellants by the learned Single Judge (S.S. Chauhan, J.) is also liable to be quashed, which is hereby quashed as the aforesaid order has been set aside by us and is hereby quashed. As a result of setting aside of the two orders in the aforesaid two writ petitions, the matters stand restored in their respective writ petitions which need be decided on merits by the learned Single Judge having jurisdiction. 19. On the request of the learned Counsel appearing for Smt. Sudha Singh, Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava we allow the impleadment of Sri Pramod Kumar Singh and Ms. Meenu Singh in the Writ Petition of Smt. Sudha Singh as respondents. Notice on their behalf has been accepted by Sri Brij Raj Tripathi, Advocate. Counter affidavit may be filed in both the writ petitions by their respective respondents within a period of three weeks and thereafter rejoinder affidavit may be filed within next two weeks. Meenu Singh in the Writ Petition of Smt. Sudha Singh as respondents. Notice on their behalf has been accepted by Sri Brij Raj Tripathi, Advocate. Counter affidavit may be filed in both the writ petitions by their respective respondents within a period of three weeks and thereafter rejoinder affidavit may be filed within next two weeks. Let the writ petitions be listed in the month of November, 2007 before the learned Single Judge. We request the learned Single Judge to expedite the hearing of the aforesaid writ petitions and liberty is also given to the parties to make such a request whenever the case is listed before the learned Single Judge. 20. Till the matter is considered by the learned Single Judge, the appellants, who were continuing since before, shall be allowed to continue on the post of Shiksha Mitra. However, it will be open to the parties to move any appropriate application before the learned Single Judge who has authority to pass any interim order including modifying the order or vacating the order. 21. Both the special appeals are allowed. No order as to costs. Appeal Allowed. ————