JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Mr. R.C. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. R.S. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 2 and 4 and the learned Standing Counsel. 2. The appeal seeks to challenge the order passed by a learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 3. The controversy involved in this matter is with respect to the continuance of the appellant as a Shiksha Mitra. 4. The appeal is admitted. 5. By consent of parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing and disposal forthwith. 6. The appellant was appointed as Shiksha Mitra in the concerned Village in District Kaushambi on 4th of December, 2001. His brother became a Village Pradhan in June, 2005. In view of his brother becoming a Village Pradhan, he is said to be discontinued from the post of Shiksha Mitra. The rule relied against him reads as follows: “A near relative of the Chairman and the Secretary of the Education Committee will not be selected as Shiksha Mitra. Near relative means Father, Grandfather, Father-in-law, Son, Grandson, Son-in-law, Brother, Sister, Husband, Wife, Daughter and Mother”. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this rule prevents the selection of a near relative and that should be read as preventing it at the initial stage. The working of a person as Shiksha Mitra, who is already selected and continuing satisfactorily, cannot be discontinued by using this rule. There is no upper age limit for continuing as a Shiksha Mitra. 8. The authorities of the Government discontinued the petitioner/appellant’s functioning as Shiksha Mitra by passing an order dated 20.1.2007. This order was challenged by the appellant by filing a writ petition, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 9. As stated above, the learned counsel for the appellant points out that the appellant is already working as Shiksha Mitra from 4th of December, 2001. Rule 5 of the relevant rule provides that although the term for a Shiksha Mitra will be until last working day of the month of May, it further says that if the work and performance of the concerned Teacher/Shiksha Mitra is satisfactory, he will be continued for the next year. Obviously, the appellant’s work and performance was satisfactory and that is how he has continued from December, 2001 until he came to be discontinued. Obviously, the appellant’s work and performance was satisfactory and that is how he has continued from December, 2001 until he came to be discontinued. As stated, the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as of the Basic Education Officer ought to be set aside. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the Basic Education Officer submits that the service of Shiksha Mitra is a voluntary service. A Shiksha Mitra is to be paid an honorarium of Rs.2400/- per month, and the service is to be discontinued at the end of May of every year. 11. This being the position, it is submitted that when the brother of the appellant became a Village Pradhan in the month of June, 2005, the officer concerned was right in discontinuing the services of the appellant as Shiksha Mitra. 12. We have noted the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Basic Education Officer. 13. In our view, all this submission cannot be used to defeat the claim of the appellant. It is undoubtedly a voluntary service as stated above, but it is arising on account of the unemployment in the young persons. 14. That being so, if a person is selected on his own merit after a lot of scrutiny and he continued for about more than three and half years (3 ½ yrs.), it cannot be said that on his brother being elected as a Village Pradhan, his services as Shiksha Mitra can be discontinued. The Rule cannot be read to mean that when a ‘near relative’ becomes an office bearer in the Village, a Shiksha Mitra will have to lose his employment, but the Rule says that if you have a ‘near relative’, you will not be appointed at the initial stage. 15. In our view, the Basic Education Officer was in error in discontinuing the appellant from the post of Shiksha Mitra as also the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. 16. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal. The order of the learned Single Judge as well as of the Basic Education Officer is set aside. The authority concerned will engage the appellant as Shiksha Mitra in the village, where he was working earlier. 16. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal. The order of the learned Single Judge as well as of the Basic Education Officer is set aside. The authority concerned will engage the appellant as Shiksha Mitra in the village, where he was working earlier. It is made clear that the clauses governing his appointment and continuance will continue to hold the field and he will have to render his services satisfactorily. 17. The appeal is allowed. ———