JUDGMENT Hon’ble H.L. Gokhale, C.J.—Heard Smt. Anita Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Ravi Pratap, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 7. 2. The facts of this matter show that a good scheme of Shiksha Mitra is derailed because of litigation and the orders passed by the Government officials. This is a case where the appointment was to be made for the academic year 2005-06 in a village in district Basti. The advertisement itself was however given at the end of the academic year on 8th April, 2006. This selection procedure went on thereafter until 26th November, 2006 and the appellant claims to have joined on 7.2.2007. But by a stay order the appellant was again out of job after a couple of days. The consequence is that thereafter there has been no teacher at all working as Shiksha Mitra in the institution. There have been orders by the District Magistrate and then by the Courts also. 3. Everybody is forgetting that the scheme of Shiksha Mitra is to spread education and it is not a scheme for employment. What is being given is an honorarium to the concerned teacher. The appointment comes to an end at the end of the academic year, with right to continue if the performance is good. 4. In the instant case everybody has forgotten this scheme of Shiksha Mitra and the litigation is going on continuously. 5. In the circumstances since the concerned academic year has elapsed long back and since nobody is appointed, there cannot be any appointment either of the petitioner or of the respondent No. 7. The prayer of appointment is in the nature of specific relief and the specific relief can be granted only when one makes out a case. No such case is made out by both of them and the appeal, as well as the writ petition both, stand disposed of with this order. 6. We direct the concerned District Magistrate to start the procedure to appointment of Shiksha Mitra in that particular village forthwith, for the academic year 2008-09 and see to it that the selection and appointment of Shiksha Mitra is done well before the academic year starts on 1st of July, 2008. The appellant and the respondent No. 7 will both be eligible to participate in the selection procedure and they will be considered on their merit. 7. The appellant and the respondent No. 7 will both be eligible to participate in the selection procedure and they will be considered on their merit. 7. As far as the appellant is concerned, the appellant is contending that he is a handicapped person and suffers from disability. The judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Shiv Kumar Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2001 (3) A.W.C. 1972 has been relied upon against the appellant which held that for grant of any such concession, the disability is to be of 40%. In that case, the rule applied is under the central law and not under the State Act. In any case, this is the aspect which the authority should consider. We leave the matter to them. 8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this appeal and the writ petition both stand disposed of. ————