Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1721 (ALL)

Pinki Gupta v. District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sultanpur and Another

2011-07-18

FERDINO INACIO REBELLO, SHABIHUL HASNAIN

body2011
By The Court—This appeal has been filed along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. Grounds taken in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application are sufficient. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. Application stands disposed of. 4. So far as merit is concerned, this is an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.1.2011. The learned Judge has refused to grant relief for appointment against the post of Shiksha Mitra, considering that the Government has taken a policy decision not to make any further appointments to the said post in view of promulgation of the Right to Education Act, 2009. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, points out that there are other judgments, which had taken view that because of subsequent events, the right of the petitioner-appellant should not be defeated. Reference is made to the decision of this Court in the case of Aditya Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition No. 1960 of 2010 (S/S) decided on 1.9.2010. The learned Judge in the said writ petition has noted that the Block Level Committee had approved the appointment of the petitioner therein sometime in 2008 and only because subsequent circular dated 30.12.2009, whereby the teacher-students ratio was sought to be changed to 1:40, would not preclude the petitioner-appellant therein from being considered and accordingly, issued the directions. 6. In our opinion, the facts of this case is clearly distinguishable. The selection of the petitioner-appellant is of the year 2005. Mere selection does not confer any right on the person to be appointed. It is always open to the respondent to reconsider the issue as long as the decision is arbitrary. In the instant case, the State Government has taken a policy decision that in view of promulgation of the Right to Education Act, the post of Shiksha Mitra would not be filled up. 7. Considering the above, we find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. _____________