Virendra Kumar Dixit, J.— We have considered the application for condonation of delay and as learned counsel for respondents does not have any objection to the delay being condoned, the application is hereby allowed and the delay is condoned. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of Special Appeal. This Special Appeal arises out of an order dated November 30, 2012, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.659 (S/S) of 2010 (Km.Bhavini Mishra Vs.State of U.P.and others), whereby the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the selection was carried out by the District Selection Committee on the recommendation of the Village Education Committee, which was not competent to advertise and process the selection of 'Shiksha Mitra'. Brief facts giving rise to filing of Special Appeal are that an advertisement for appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra was published in the newspaper by the office of the Opposite Party no. 2. Vide the said advertisement three posts of Shiksha Mitra were made available in Block Mankapur. The petitioner thus applied for the said post on 15.11.2008. Thereafter a meeting of Village Education Committee was called for making the appointment against these vacancies. In total 11 candidates applied for the posts and in the meeting the merit list was prepared in which the name of petitioner appeared at Sl. No. 2. Finally, considering the merit of candidates, selection was made against three vacancies by appointing those candidates who were at top in the merit list by the resolution of the Village Education Committee dated 30.12.2008. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid resolution it appears that the petitioner who was placed at Sl. 2 was selected for the post of Shiksha Mitra of Primary School Gandhi Nagar, Mankapur. The candidate who was placed at Sl. No. 1 in the merit list being under the prescribed age was rejected. Thus petitioner's name who was placed at serial no.2 was proposed by the Village Education Committee to the District Level Committee. A press release was published in Dainik Hindi 'Hindustan' on 12.01.2009 about the selection and approval of the petitioner for the post of Shiksha Mitra in Primary School Gandhi Nagar, Mankapur by the District Level Education Committee. One Smt. Jyoti Jaiswal wife of Balram Jaiswal respondent no. 3 who also participated in the aforesaid selection and placed at Sl. A press release was published in Dainik Hindi 'Hindustan' on 12.01.2009 about the selection and approval of the petitioner for the post of Shiksha Mitra in Primary School Gandhi Nagar, Mankapur by the District Level Education Committee. One Smt. Jyoti Jaiswal wife of Balram Jaiswal respondent no. 3 who also participated in the aforesaid selection and placed at Sl. No. 7 approached the District Level Committee as stated in the impugned order dated 13.01.2009 and submitted a complaint to the effect that the proposal should have been ward-wise. Respondent no. 3 had no locus standi to make the complaint after participating in the selection and having failed to get selected because of her low ranking in the merit list. By virtue of the selection and approval of appointment, the petitioner, was sent for training from 21.01.2009 to 19.2.2009 and after completing the training, a training certificate was also issued to her by the competent authority. The petitioner, thus joined the post on 20.2.2009. She resumed her duties but all of a sudden on 26.2.2009 she was relieved of her post by the Secretary/Principal of the Primary School Mankapur while mentioning in the order that respondent no. 2 rejected her selection/approval. As such, she was relieved. According to the petitioner the advertisement in question was duly published in the newspaper. Thus as many as 11 candidates who were eligible applied for the post and the Village Education Committee was asked to send the resolution. The petitioner who was placed high in the merit list was selected and the resolution was approved by the District Level Education Committee. The petitioner was sent for training and after completion of training, was also permitted to work and perform her duties. However, without issuing any notice, on the basis of a vague complaint by one of the participants of the aforesaid selection, the candidature of petitioner was cancelled which according to her is not tenable in the eyes of law. The petitioner approached the District Level Education Committee for the copy of the order dated 19.2.2009 whereby her candidature was cancelled by the District Level Education Committee. The copy of the same was not supplied to her and only the impugned order dated 19.2.2009 which had been passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Gonda, respondent no. 2 was made available. The copy of the same was not supplied to her and only the impugned order dated 19.2.2009 which had been passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Gonda, respondent no. 2 was made available. The petitioner also requested the respondents to permit her to work and discharge her duties on the post of Shiksha Mitra. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the aforesaid contentions in his oral submissions during the course of hearing. It appears that having found the selection being carried out by the Village Level Committee which was not competent to do so, the impugned order dated 17.6.2009 was passed by the District Collector, Gonda. It also appears that the Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari, who submitted the recommendation on the resolution of the Village Level Committee was punished with adverse entry for dereliction in the performance of duty. However, one fact that can weigh in favour of the appellant is that pursuant to her selections, she has also completed the requisite training and has been granted the certificate which is the only additional requirement now under the provisions of 'The Right of Children To Free And Compulsory Education Act, 2009' (for short 'The 2009 Act'), though it came into force on a later date. Now as there is a complete ban on the appointment of 'Shiksha Mitra' towards the implementation of provisions of Act of 2009, it would not be appropriate to pass any direction in favour of the appellant. Moreover, the Village Level Selection Committee was also found to be incompetent. However, keeping in view that the petitioner was selected, even though it was by an incompetent Committee and further that she has received training, she should get preference in next selection, if any, after the ban on appointment of 'Shiksha Mitra' is lifted. With the aforesaid observation, the Special Appeal is disposed of. _____________