JUDGMENT Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. 2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of India, has been preferred against the impugned order dated 16.7.2009 contained in Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, by which the petitioner’s agreement for fair price shop, has been cancelled by the Deputy Collector, Gonda and the appellate order dated 26.8.2009 contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, passed by the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 16.7.2009, has been dismissed. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that the Additional Basic Shiksha Adhikari, had made an endorsement that a person appointed on the post of Shiksha Mitra, may be appointed a fair price shop dealer, by the impugned order, the license of the petitioner has been cancelled. A perusal of the impugned order dated 16.7.2009 contained in Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, indicates that the license has been cancelled only because the petitioner is holding the license of fair price shop and simultaneously working on the post of Shiksha Mitra. Accordingly, the petitioner is obtaining double benefit. It has also been stated that Deputy Collector, Gonda while passing the impugned order, has not given reasonable opportunity of hearing. 4. Attention has been invited to the terms and conditions provided for allotment of fair price shop in the Government order dated 3.7.1990 contained in Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. It has been stated that under the terms and conditions, the fair price shop shall be allotted to any person on part time basis to a villager as a part time job. It has also been submitted that there is no provision under the terms and condition to allot the fair price shop to a person working on the post of Shiksha Mitra. 5. So far as the post of Shiksha Mitra is concerned, it is regulated by the Government order dated 1.7.2000 contained in Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition. A perusal of the Government order shows that the post of Shiksha Mitra has been meant to provide employment residing in the rural area to the youths on payment of honorarium. 5. So far as the post of Shiksha Mitra is concerned, it is regulated by the Government order dated 1.7.2000 contained in Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition. A perusal of the Government order shows that the post of Shiksha Mitra has been meant to provide employment residing in the rural area to the youths on payment of honorarium. Relevant portions of the said Government order dated 1.7.2000 is reproduced as under : Þmi;qDr fo"k; ij kkluknsk la[;k 2604@15&5&99&282@98] fnukad 26-4-1999 ,oa kk0 la0 4386@15&5&99&282@98] Vhlh] fnukad 11-8-1999 ds vuqØe esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZk gqvk gS fd Ánsk esa ÁkFkfed fk{kk ds lkoZHkkSfedj.k ds y{; dh vksj vxzlj gksus ds Á;klksa ds vUrxZr kklu us xzkeh.k {ks=ksa esa fkf{kr ;qok ih<+h dks fk{kk ds Álkj esa LosPNk mudh lgHkkfxrk lkeqnkf;d lsok ds {ks= esa xzke iapk;rksa }kjk ÁkIr djus ds fy, fk{kk fe= ;kstuk dh jpuk dh gSA oLrqr% ;g ;kstuk eq[; :i ls xzkeh.k fkf{kr ;qok kfDr dks vius gh xzke esa fk{kk ds vkyksd dks lkeqnkf;d lsok ds :i esa ÁTtofyr djus gsrq mUgsa mRÁsfjr djus ds y{; dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, ÁkjEHk dh x;h gSA ;gka ;g Hkh Li"V :i ls Ásf{kr dj fn;k tkuk vko;d gS fd fk{kk fe= ;kstuk lsok;kstu iwjd ;kstuk ugha gSA ÁR;qDr bldk mn~ns; xzkeh.k fkf{kr ;qokvksa dks ÁkFkfed fk{kk ds {ks= esa mudh lkeqnkf;d lsok gsrq mRÁsfjr djuk ek= gSAÞ 6. A plain reading of the circular dated 1.7.2000 shows that a qualified person be appointed on the post of Shiksha Mitra as a measure of employment as a substitute to regular employment. A close scrutiny of the order shows that the post of Shiksha Mitra has been meant for unemployment youths of rural areas. Accordingly, unless specifically provided under the Government order, a person engaged in the business or like in the present case, of fair price shop owner does not seem to be entitled for appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra. In case a person engaged in a business or possessing a regular source of income or doing some job, is appointed on the post of Shiksha Mitra, the very purpose of the Government order will be frustrated. 7. In case a person engaged in a business or possessing a regular source of income or doing some job, is appointed on the post of Shiksha Mitra, the very purpose of the Government order will be frustrated. 7. Apart from the above, a circular dated 23.7.2002 has been produced before this Court by the learned standing counsel showing the working hours during summer season from 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., in the morning and in the evening from 3:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.. In winter season the time prescribed for opening and closing fair price shop is, in morning from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and in the evening from 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. 8. From the above, it is clear that the fair price shop owner is engaged for full time job to run the fair price shop. A person engaged as fair price shop dealer, does not seem to be able to discharge the duties as Shiksha Mitra. In case, a person like the petitioner,is appointed on the post of Shiksha Mitra, it shall amount to abuse of process of law and giving a favour to a person to obtain honorarium without discharging his duties. Keeping in view the working hours and engagement of fair price shop dealer, it cannot be inferred that a person as in the present case, shall be able to discharge duty on the post of Shiksha Mitra. Accordingly, the appointment of a fair price shop dealer or any person engaged in a business, does not seem to be entitled to appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra. 9. The impugned order has been passed on the ground that the petitioner is availing two benefits from the public exchequer. It is settled law that principle of natural justice is a part and partial of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A person cannot be divested from his source of livelihood. While cancelling the license, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, should have given option to the petitioner to take a decision with regard to his continuance either on the post of Shiksha Mitra or to avail the benefit of license to run fair price shop. A person cannot be divested from his source of livelihood. While cancelling the license, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, should have given option to the petitioner to take a decision with regard to his continuance either on the post of Shiksha Mitra or to avail the benefit of license to run fair price shop. The Government circular dated 1.7.2000 as well as the circular dated 3.7.1990 with regard to laying down service conditions for grant of license to run fair price shop or appointment of Shiksha Mitra, seems to be vague and does not contain specific provisions to debar a person from availing two benefits. In our country where 35% of population are illiterate or below poverty line, the Government order should be clear while regulating the grant of license or appointment of Shiksha Mitra. Accordingly, the State Government is directed to issue a clarificatory order keeping in view the observations in the present judgment. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order with consequential benefits. The S.D.M. as well as The Basic Shiksha Adhikari are directed to take a decision forthwith in the light of the observations made hereinabove expeditiously and preferably within one month from today. Since officers are present in Court, it shall not be necessary for the petitioner to communicate the order. 11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government of U.P., for compliance forthwith and submit a compliance report within two months. ————