Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 764 (ALL)

DIPTI SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-03-03

PRADEEP KANT, S.N.H.ZAIDI

body2010
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard the counsel for the appellant Sri Krishna Kumar Dwivedi and Sri Rajiv Ratan Chaudhary holding brief of Sri Jyotinjai Verma for Basic Shiksha Parishad. 2. The appellant who was appointed as Shiksha Mitra for the academic session 2005-06, was given renewal for the subsequent sessions upto 2009-10, which was to come to an end on 31.5.2010. The appellant went on leave for pursuing B.Ed. course during the academic session 2008-09. The appellant allegedly took leave from the Secretary of the Gram Shiksha Samiti and remained absent from 15.9.09 to 15.2.2010. It appears that in the meantime a complaint was made against the said conduct of the appellant, for which an enquiry was got conducted and opportunity was afforded to the appellant for showing cause as to how she had gone on leave for higher studies, when it was prohibited under the Government order dated 16.6.2007. 3. It being a fact that the appellant, who was working as Shiksha Mitra, went on leave for enhancing her educational qualification in violation of the Government order aforesaid, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari passed an order terminating the appointment of the appellant with immediate effect vide order dated 16.1.2010. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant, assailing the aforesaid order, submitted that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari was not having jurisdiction to pass the order of termination but it has rightly been pointed out by the learned counsel for Basic Shiksha Adhikari that no such plea was ever raised in the writ petition. That being the situation, the said plea cannot be allowed to be raised in the special appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari could not have terminated the services of the appellant but could have recommended to the Village Level Committee for the same and in support thereof, he has drawn the attention of this Court to an order passed in Writ Petition No. 974 (SS) of 2008, Vimlesh Singh v. State of U.P. and others, which reads as under : “Without entering into merit of the case, it is hereby directed that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue on the post of Shiksha Mitra till 31st May, 2008. 6. The aforesaid order does not say anywhere that the petitioner of that writ petition was allowed to continue because the order terminating her services was not passed by the competent authority. 6. The aforesaid order does not say anywhere that the petitioner of that writ petition was allowed to continue because the order terminating her services was not passed by the competent authority. The order does not give any reason but it appears that considering the fact that the term of the petitioner was to come to an end in May, 2008, the learned Single Judge allowed her to continue till 31st May, 2008. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant thereafter drew the attention of the Court to the order passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari in pursuance of the aforesaid order on 19.4.08 but perusal of the aforesaid order also does not show that the petitioner of the aforesaid writ petition was allowed to continue because the order was passed by an officer, who was not having any authority but it was only in compliance of the order passed by the High Court that she was allowed to continue. 8. Apart from this technicality, the fact remains that the appellant very well knew that she was engaged/appointed under a scheme and that she had to follow the terms and conditions laid down for the purpose. The scheme did not provide anywhere for grant of study leave, rather, the entire scheme of Shiksha Mitra has been framed with an object to engage local residents for imparting education at the village level and if these local residents are allowed to go on leave for such a long duration, that too for enhancement of their educational qualification, it would defeat the very purpose of the scheme. 9. The plea of the appellant that the Village Level Committee or its Secretary has granted the leave and, therefore, also her services could not have been terminated, is of no consequence, reason being that the Village Level Committee itself was not competent, what to say of the Secretary, to grant any such study leave and if the Committee has acted in violation of the scheme or against the interest of the scheme, neither any benefit can be given nor any protection can be extended to the appellant for that reason. 10. 10. Considering this aspect of the matter, the learned Single Judge has observed that the scheme of Shiksha Mitra is for educating the rural children, who are otherwise incompetent and incapable of going outside the village to get some education and that it is a benevolent scheme where only one teacher is appointed to teach the whole number of students available and, therefore, such a leave for enhancement of career, leaves hundreds of students in jeopardy. 11. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the present case, there were six teachers available. 12. Be that as it may, this Court would not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction for passing an order which would run contrary to the scheme itself and, therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. 13. The special appeal thus, does not call for any interference by this Court and is dismissed. ————