JUDGMENT By the Court.—The present Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 5.5.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11576 of 2003. 2. It appears that the aforementioned Civil Misc. Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner-appellant for quashing the order dated 5.3.2003 whereby the select list in regard to the post of Shiksha Mitra was cancelled by the Visheshagya Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Maharajganj, district Maharajganj with a further prayer for directing the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner-appellant as Shiksha Mitra and to pay honorarium to the petitioner-appellant month by month till the end of session. 3. By the order dated 13th March, 2003 notice was directed to be issued on the Writ Petition and the operation of the said order dated 5.3.2003 was stayed till 30th May, 2003. 4. On 5th May, 2003 the Writ Petition was heard by the learned Single Judge and was dismissed as he was of the view that the post of Shiksha Mitra is not a civil post and therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, he directed that if any amount with regard to honorarium was due the same would be paid by the respondent No. 1 in the Writ Petition within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the respondents in the Writ Petition. 5. The petitioner-appellant has thereafter filed the present special appeal challenging the said order dated 5th May, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. We have heard, Sri Satyendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record. 7. The only question which is to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant in regard to cancellation of the select list for the post of Shiksha Mitra was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Sri Satyendra Pandey, submits that such Writ Petition would be maintainable in view of a Division Bench of this Court in Sadhana Devi v. State of U.P. and others, 2009(2) ADJ 494 (DB) : 2009(2) ESC 1120 (All)(DB). 9. 8. Sri Satyendra Pandey, submits that such Writ Petition would be maintainable in view of a Division Bench of this Court in Sadhana Devi v. State of U.P. and others, 2009(2) ADJ 494 (DB) : 2009(2) ESC 1120 (All)(DB). 9. We have considered the submission made by Sri Satyendra Pandey and we are inclined to accept the same. In the aforesaid case cited, the appellant was appointed as Shiksha Mitra at Prathamic Vidyalaya, Hata Bujurg, Uruwa Bazar, Gorakhpur. On a complaint made against the appellant an inquiry was conducted by the Basic Education Officer. On the inquiry, it was found that the mark sheet of the appellant was forged. Consequently, the appointment of the appellant was cancelled by the order dated 27th July, 2008. Thereupon the appellant filed a Writ Petition before this Court on the ground that the said order dated 27th July, 2008 had been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the Writ Petition as not maintainable. Thereupon the appellant filed a Special Appeal. The Division Bench of this Court allowed the Special Appeal, set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and held that the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable as the same was directed against the action of Government Officer, who was a public authority. Relevant paragraph Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the judgment of U.P.L.B.E.C. of the Division Bench are reproduced below : (5) “He has also invited the attention of the Court towards the decision of this Court in Urmila Chaurasia v. State of U.P. and others, 2004 (4) ESC 2548 and Smt. Nirmala Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (2) ESC 1288 (All), wherein learned Single Judge after tracing out the constitutional/statutory origin of the Government Orders pursuant thereto Shiksha Mitra are appointed and considering Mala Devi’s case has held that the writ petitions are maintainable where the impugned orders are passed by the Government authorities as the illegal and arbitrary action of the Government authorities are open to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”. (6) “The reliance has also been placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Special Appeal No. 1498 of 2008, Meena Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 4.11.2008, wherein the Division Bench has observed that since the writ petition has been filed against the action of Government Officer, who is a public authority, therefore, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against the public authority. The public authorities, who are State-authorities and instrumentalities are not to act arbitrary, irrationally or unreasonably. Any action of public authority can always be impugned in the writ petition and it cannot not be said that the writ petition is not maintainable in such case. The Division Bench opined that the writ petition is maintainable in such matters.” (7) “Here in the present case the impugned order dated 26.7.2008 in the writ petition was passed by the Basic Education Officer, therefore, we are of the view that the writ petition was maintainable and the learned Single Judge has erred dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable.” 10. Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Meena Srivastava v. State of U.P., 2007 (1) ESMC 552, while dealing with an appeal arising out of an order of dismissal of Writ Petition as not maintainable in connection with the challenge to the termination order of a Shiksha Mitra held that as the Writ Petition is directed against action/order of Government Officer the same is maintainable and observed as under : “In the facts of the present case writ petition has been filed against an action of a Government Officer, who is public authority. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a public authority. The public authorities, who are State authorities and instrumentalities are not to act arbitrarily, irrationally or unreasonably. Any action of public authority can always be impugned in the writ petition and it cannot be said that the writ petition is not maintainable in such case.” 11. The public authorities, who are State authorities and instrumentalities are not to act arbitrarily, irrationally or unreasonably. Any action of public authority can always be impugned in the writ petition and it cannot be said that the writ petition is not maintainable in such case.” 11. A similar controversy with regard to the maintainability of a writ petition in respect to termination of services of Anganwadi workers by the Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O.) came up for consideration before the full bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Sheela Devi and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2010 (5) ADJ 86 (FB). The full bench placing reliance upon certain decisions of the Apex Court opined that the ambit and scope of Article 226 has been liberalized, widened and expanded by the Courts and a petition is maintainable if the petitioner seeks relief in accordance with law and his real grievance is against the action or an order passed by a statutory authority or an authority vested with performance of public functions. Accordingly, a writ would always be maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an order passed by a public authority i.e. an Officer of the Government or by any person in discharge of public duty. The full bench further observed as under : “that actions and orders of Public Officers are amenable to judicial review even if they may be arising out of a contract or any scheme of the Government and therefore, the writ petition cannot be thrown out simply on the technical ground that it is not maintainable.” 12. The Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Co-operative Bank Limited v. Chandra Bhan Dubey, (1999) 1 SCC 741 , the Supreme Court has laid down the following proposition “.........The Constitution is not a statute. It is a fountain head of all statutes. When the language of Article 226 is clear, we cannot put shackles on the High Courts to limit their jurisdiction by putting an interpretation on the words which would limit their jurisdiction. When any citizen or person is wronged, the High Court will step in to protect him, be that wrong be done by the State, an instrumentality of the State, a company or a co-operative society or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, or even an individual. When any citizen or person is wronged, the High Court will step in to protect him, be that wrong be done by the State, an instrumentality of the State, a company or a co-operative society or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, or even an individual. Right that is infringed may be under part III of the Constitution or any other right which the law validly made might confer upon him.” 13. In view of the above legal position, we are of the opinion that the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner-appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable as the Writ Petition had been filed against an order passed by Visheshagya Basic Shiksha Adhikar, Maharajganj, district Maharajganj (respondent No. 1 in the writ petition) who was a Government Authority, and the learned Single Judge erred in holding it to be not maintainable. 14. Accordingly, we allow the Special Appeal and set aside the order dated 5.5.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge. 15. The Writ Petition is restored to its original number for consideration on merits. The Writ Petition will now be listed before the appropriate Bench for consideration. —————