Sunil Ambwani and K.N. Pandey, JJ.:- Heard Shri R.K. Ojha, learned Counsel for the appellant. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondents. Shri Arvind Maurya appears for respondent No. 6. 2. This special appeal arises out of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.7.2008, by which he has dismissed the writ petition filed by Shri Rajendra Prasad Yadav, claiming appointment as 'Shiksha Mitra' in Village Harchandpur, Post Office Bhiti, Vikas Khand Handia, Distt. Allahabad after treating the post of 'Shiksha Mitra' in the village to be re­served for an eligible person belonging to 'Other Backward Class'. 3. An advertisement was issued for selections of 'Shiksha Mitra' in the village in the year 2004. One Shri Ashwini Kumar was selected and appointed. The selection was challenged on which this Court directed the District Magistrate to decide the petitioner-appellant's representation. The District Magistrate cancelled the appointment of Shri Ashwini Kumar on 16th July, 2007. A fresh advertisement was issued on 24th December, 2007. On the recommendation of Village Shiksha Samiti, the District Level Committee selected Ms Archana Maurya-respondent No. 6. The petitioner-appellant again filed the writ petition challenging the appointment of Archana Maurya. The writ petition was again disposed of directing the District Magistrate to decide the representation, which was thereafter rejected by the District Magistrate giv­ing rise to the writ petition. It was contended by learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge that since the post of Pradhan was reserved for OBC candidate, when initial advertisement was made in the year 2004, in the subsequent advertisement issued in the year 2007 also the Shiksha Mitra should have been selected from OBC category, and not from the general category. 4. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner did not raise the objection, when the advertisement made in the year 2007. He took a chance in selections and now he cannot be permitted to say that the post should be reserved for OBC category. 5. Shri R.K. Ojha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-appel­lant submits that the State Government has provided the method of identifi­cation for the posts of 'Shiksha Mitra' in the Government Order dated 1st July, 2000. The Government Order provides that 50% posts shall be filled up by pro­motion. 5. Shri R.K. Ojha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-appel­lant submits that the State Government has provided the method of identifi­cation for the posts of 'Shiksha Mitra' in the Government Order dated 1st July, 2000. The Government Order provides that 50% posts shall be filled up by pro­motion. The 'Shiksha Mitra' will be appointed in such a manner that the first post in the Primary School is reserved for the same category for which the of­fice of the Pradhan has been reserved. The second vacancy shall be treated to be unreserved. Shri Ojha submits that a system of rotation has been provided for the office of Gram Pradhan to be filled up by elections in which the district is treated to be one unit. A 'Shiksha Mitra' is selected for one academic session but that his right for renewal, if his services are satisfactory, has been recog­nized by the Court. The Government Order dated 1st July, 2000 in so far as it provides for the reservation of the post of Shiksha Mitra of the same category of the Pradhan after the rotation will lead to anomalous position. He submits that percentage of reservation in the district as a unit will change with every selection and that the rotation in case of reservation in the office of Pradhan and may exceed the maximum prescribed reservation of Shiksha Mitras of re­served categories beyond 50%. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. Firstly we find that no such ar­gument was raised before the learned Single Judge and thus his judgment cannot be questioned on this ground. Secondly we find that there will be ho difficulty in applying the reservation to the post of Shiksha Mitra in accordance with the Government Order dated 1st July, 2000. At the time of first appointment with 50% post of Shiksha Mitra to be filled up by women candidates, the first vacancy in the school has to be reserved for the category, for which the office of the Pradhan is reserved. The second vacancy has to be treated as unreserved. In the second recruitment of Shiksha Mitra subject to the renewal, the same policy of providing 50% appointments to be given to women and the first post of Shiksha Mitra to be filled up by the same category of Pradhan, if there is va­cancy, has to be followed. 7. The second vacancy has to be treated as unreserved. In the second recruitment of Shiksha Mitra subject to the renewal, the same policy of providing 50% appointments to be given to women and the first post of Shiksha Mitra to be filled up by the same category of Pradhan, if there is va­cancy, has to be followed. 7. There may be a case indeed in the second or subsequent recruitment, when the percentage of particular category on the post of Shiksha Mitra may vary, in the district as a unit, but we have to remember that the provisions of U.P. Public Services (Reservation for SC, ST and OBC) Act, 1994, are not applicable to the appointment of Shiksha Mitra. A general policy of giving repre­sentation, on the basis of the reservation for the office of Pradhan has to be fol­lowed. The Shiksha Mitras are appointed under a scheme, to fill up the vacan­cies of the teachers in Primary Schools with shortage of teachers in villages on temporary basis until regular appointments are made. The Shiksha Mitra do not hold any post and thus the question of applicability of policy of reservation does not strictly apply to such appointments. 8. The Pradhan is elected for five years, whereas the term of Shiksha Mitra is one academic session and may be renewed, in case the regular teachers is not available for the next academic session subject to satisfactory teaching work performed by him/her. The number of candidates appointed from any particular category may therefore vary, with each renewal and rotation for reservation of office of Pradhan. 9. We do not find any factual or legal error in the judgment of learned Single Judge to interfere in the matter. 10. The special appeal is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.