JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.V.S. Rathore, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for opposite parties. None present on behalf of O.P. No. 6. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 1.7.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Kheri on the representation of the petitioner which was presented in compliance of the directions passed in writ petition No. 1901(SS) of 2009 Soni Devi v. State of U.P. and others. 3. Short controversy involved in this petition is that the petitioner applied for appointment as Shiksha Mitra in the year 2007 under handicapped quota. Opposite party No. 6 also applied for the same under the same category. The village Education Committee had recommended the name of the petitioner on the ground that she had secured 67% quality points marks after addition of 10% marks of disabled category and opposite party No. 6 had secured 59.5% quality point marks after addition of 10% marks of disabled category, on account of which the petitioner was selected. Opposite party No. 6 filed a writ petition before the High Court bearing No. 2579(SS) of 2008 Smt. Kamlesh v. State of U.P. and others. in which vide order dated 29.5.2008 this Court had directed as under : “The controversy relates to disputed question of facts. No interference under Article 226 of the constitution is warranted. However, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari is directed to look into the matter and decide the controversy in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously and preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the present order and communicate the decision to the parties. In compliance of the said order, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari decided the controversy vide order dated 30.1.2009 and allowed the appointment of opposite party No. 6 on the ground that the percentage of disability of Smt. Kamlesh was 75% while the disability percentage of the petitioner Km. Soni Devi was 40%. In the order, while disposing the representation, it was further observed that opposite party No. 6 was also unemployed while Km. Soni Devi was a student of B.A. III. Accordingly on the aforesaid ground preference was given to opposite party No. 6 in place of petitioner. Soni Devi was 40%. In the order, while disposing the representation, it was further observed that opposite party No. 6 was also unemployed while Km. Soni Devi was a student of B.A. III. Accordingly on the aforesaid ground preference was given to opposite party No. 6 in place of petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner herself filed writ petition No. 1901(SS) of 2009 in which this Court passed the following order : “let the matter be placed before the concerned District Magistrate who will look into the claim of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 7 Smt. Kamlesh Kumari Mishra and pass appropriate order within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.” 4. Accordingly the matter was placed before the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate upheld the order passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that there was nothing in the scheme on the basis of which a person having more percentage of disability could have been given any preference. It is further submitted that there was no provision in the said scheme for giving any advantage or preference to any unemployed person. It is further submitted that the petitioner is also an unemployed person and the case of the opposite parties that she was student of B.A.III, therefore, the claim of the petitioner which was rejected on the aforementioned two grounds is an arbitrary order which has been passed simply to accommodate opposite party No. 6 and therefore, deserves to be quashed. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of the respondents that the scheme was meant to achieve the object of primary education for all and therefore, the scheme should not be treated as rules. 7. The matter of Shiksha Mitra is governed by “Shikshit Yuvaon Ke Sahbhagita Hetu Shiksha Mitra Yojna”. The aforesaid scheme was amended by the G.O. dated 10.10.2005 and it was provided that the candidates belonging to disabled, widows or divorced categories shall get 10% marks in addition to what they secured on the basis of educational qualification. There was nothing in this scheme that any advantage shall be given to unemployed person. Apart from it, the petitioner was only a student of B.A. III year, she cannot be said to be employed and she was also an unemployed person. There was nothing in this scheme that any advantage shall be given to unemployed person. Apart from it, the petitioner was only a student of B.A. III year, she cannot be said to be employed and she was also an unemployed person. The only ground for rejecting the petitioner’s appointment was that opposite party No. 6 was handicapped by 75% while the petitioner was only 40% disabled, but there is nothing in the scheme which makes such discrimination. The scheme provides that on the ground of disability 10% marks of the average secured marks shall be added. As per the scheme a different class of disabled, divorced or widows persons was created and it was provided that in addition of average quality point obtained by them, 10% of the same shall be added. Admittedly by adding 10% more marks the petitioner stood first in the merit list. The ground on which her appointment has been rejected, as mentioned above, cannot be said to be in any manner in consonance with the scheme. Therefore, the order on the basis of which the District Magistrate has passed the impugned order was not in accordance with the scheme as stated above. The petitioner was denied appointment on the grounds which could not have been taken into consideration in view of the scheme. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 8. The petition is accordingly allowed. Impugned order dated 1.7.2009 passed by O.P. No. 2 is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are hereby directed to appoint petitioner, Soni Devi because she had attained more marks and she was also disabled and unemployed person. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled for honorarium from the date of her actual joining. ———————