Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3412 (ALL)

Laxmi Trivedi v. State of U. P. and Others

2010-11-02

KASHI NATH PANDEY, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2010
By The Court—We have heard Shri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent-appellant. Learned Standing Counsel has addressed on behalf of the respondent no.1. Shri K. Shahi appears for respondent no.2.2. The appellant is aggrieved by a judgment of learned Single Judge dated 3.8.2007 in Writ Petition No. 47802 of 2006 in which he has, after considering the claim set up by Smt. Seema to be appointed as Shiksha Mitra, found that on account of a dispute between Smt. Seema and Smt. Laxmi Trivedi, for appointment as Shiksha Mitra in village Kunwarpur Janu, Post Chhibramau, District Kannauj in the selections made for the academic session 2006-07, the children of the school are suffering. The on-going dispute between them, has not allowed any appointment of Shiksha Mitra to materialise. Learned Judge has, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, directed that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari will initiate proceedings for denovo selections in the village.3. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey appearing for Smt. Laxmi Trivedi states that though Smt. Seema was selected as she had higher quality point marks as Shiksha Mitra, she had given in writing to the District Magistrate that she is not interested to serve as Shiksha Mitra on which the appellant was sent for training on 7.5.2006 and was appointed on 17.5.2006. Smt. Seema challenged the selections of appellant by a writ petition. The High Court directed the dispute to be decided by the District Magistrate. It is stated that once again Smt. Seema gave an affidavit before the District Magistrate that she is not interested to work as Shiksha Mitra on which her representation was rejected. It is alleged that a fraudulent affidavit was filed on behalf of Smt. Seema and thus she again approached the Court alleging that Smt. Laxmi Trivedi had played fraud and had got a forged affidavit filed on her behalf before the District Magistrate.4. Learned Single Judge has found that the dispute is ultimately affecting the education of the children of the village. He found that the object of the appointment of Shiksha Mitra is to temporarily fill up the large number of vacancies in the primary schools of the villages. The volunteers applying for Shiksha Mitra are appointed as Teachers in such schools running without teachers, or with only one teacher (Ekal Vidyalaya) to look after the education of the children.5. He found that the object of the appointment of Shiksha Mitra is to temporarily fill up the large number of vacancies in the primary schools of the villages. The volunteers applying for Shiksha Mitra are appointed as Teachers in such schools running without teachers, or with only one teacher (Ekal Vidyalaya) to look after the education of the children.5. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey submits that once selection was made and the appellant was appointed, she had a right to continue and for renewal of her term, subject to her satisfactory services. There was no complaint against her. The repeated attempts of Smt. Seema to cancel her appointment should have been discouraged. Learned Single Judge has not considered the rights of the petitioner, while giving directions for denovo selections contrary to the Government Orders.6. Shri J.K. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel points out to the averments in the counter affidavit that Smt. Laxmi Trivedi-the appellant was accused of forging her Intermediate mark sheet. She has disclosed her marks in the Intermediate Examination as 328/500 whereas she had actually scored only 219/500. Even then she was placed at serial No. 2. She managed to manufacture the affidavits ofSmt. Seema. A complaint has been lodged with the police on which a criminal case has been registered against the appellant again and again to deprive her for appointment of Shiksha Mitra.7. We agree with Shri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey that unless an enquiry is made and the fraud is established, the appellant should not be punished, but that by itself may not be a ground to deprive the small children of the village of their right to primary education.8. Prima facie, we find that insistence of Smt. Seema in filing the successive writ petitions is sufficient to indicate that she was interested for joining as Shiksha Mitra. The appellant wanted to block her appointment and may have manipulated the forged affidavits to be filed before the District Magistrate.9. The rights of the appellant and the respondent no. 5 cannot be put at a pedestal higher than the rights of the children of the schools to receive education, which has now been raised to the level of fundamental right under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India.10. This Court is flooded with such litigations regarding appointment of Shiksha Mitra. The entire scheme has been hijacked by the rival claimants to the post fighting for their rights. This Court is flooded with such litigations regarding appointment of Shiksha Mitra. The entire scheme has been hijacked by the rival claimants to the post fighting for their rights. They approach the court with variety of rights and pleadings of arbitrariness and malafides. In the process the fundamental right of the children of the village is sacrificed. We do not find any good ground to interfere in the Special Appeal.11. The Special Appeal is dismissed.(Special appeal dismissed)_____________