Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1569 (ALL)

VIPIN KUMAR v. STATE OF U. P.

2013-05-27

S.U.KHAN

body2013
Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri P.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 5, B.S.A. Chandauli and Basic Shiksha Parishad. 2. The grievance of the petitioners who are three in numbers is that in year 2002 they were engaged as Shiksha Mitra in Basic Schools situate in Shahkooti, Maina Tali I, Chakia-II Nagar Palika Parishads of Mughal Sarai, District Chandauli, however, through notice dated 15.11.2007 published in the News paper the said posts were advertised to be filled up again. It has further been argued that till 15.11.2007 the engagements of the petitioners were being renewed from year to year. The advertisement dated 15.11.2007, Annexure I has been challenged through this writ petition. Annexure 2 to the writ petition has also been challenged which is a letter by the District B.S.A. Chandauli dated 16.6.2007 directing that the engagement of Shiksha Mitras in Urban areas will not be renewed for 2007-08. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by B.S.A. it has been stated that through G.O. date 1.7.2000 scheme of Shiksha Mitra was launched for engaging Shiksha Mitras in the basic schools situate in rural areas, however, afterwards through G.O. dated 12.7.2006 the scheme was extended to urban areas also and consequent letter was issued by the Additional Directior on 6.11.2006 hence appointment of Shiksha Mitras prior to 12.7.2006 in urban areas ( Nagar Palika Parishad) was utterly illegal. In para 7 of the counter affidavit it has categorically been stated that in the year 2002-03 and 2003-04 scheme of Shiksha Mitra was not applicable in urban areas and appointment of the petitioners was against the G.O. dated 1.7.2000 launching the scheme for rural areas. In the rejoinder affidavit in para 4 it has been stated that: "That the contents of paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit as alleged are admitted to the extent that the G.O. dated 1.7.2000 provides Shiksha Mitra scheme for rural areas but it is specifically stated that the said G.O. nowhere bar appointment of Shiksha Mitra in urban areas, later State Government issued a Government Order for Shiksha Mitra in urban area" 4. Thereafter in para 6 of the rejoinder affidavit it has been stated "that nowhere it has been declared in the G.O. dated 12.7.06 that prior appointment on the said post in urban areas shall be deemed irregular/illegal" 5. From the above it is quite clear that until 2006 there was no provision of appointment of Shiksha Mitra for urban areas. The argument that the G.O. dated 1.7.2000 did not prohibit appointment of Shiksha Mitra in urban areas is utterly untenable. Through the said G.O. for the first time provision of appointment of Shiksha Mitra in rural areas was made. Accordingly it was confined only to rural areas. There was absolutely no occasion to state in the said G.O. that no appointment would be made in urban areas. 6. The appointment/engagements of the petitioners were therefore void ab initio. 7. Accordingly, there is absolutely nothing wrong in the impugned advertisement and order. 8. Through interim order dated 10.12.207 further selection in pursuance to the advertisement was directed to be kept in abeyance. 9. It has been stated that now selection/appointment/ engagement of Shiksha Mitra has been discontinued. 10. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. It is further directed that if at present Shiksha Mitras are not being engaged then no fresh engagement/appointment shall be made.