Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 915 (ALL)

Shalu v. State of U. P. Thru Secy & Ors.

2013-03-20

A.P.SAHI

body2013
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. Heard Sri S.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.D. Chauhan for the respondent No.5 and Sri Shravan Kumar Pandey for the respondent No.3 and 4 and learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The present petition has been filed praying in effect to allow the petitioner to work as Shiksha Mitra in the institution. At the time of arguments, Sri Pandey has prayed that he may be permitted to add another relief praying for quashing of the order passed by District Basic Education Officer dated 19.11.2012. The prayer is granted. I have heard Sri Pandey at length. The impugned order records that it will not be possible to grant the relief to the petitioner in view of the Government Order dated 2.6.2010 which has withdrawn the scheme for any future appointment of Shiksha Mitra keeping in view the enforcement of Right to Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Sri Pandey has invited the attention of the Court to the order of District Magistrate dated 20.10.2011, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, to contend that the District Magistrate has opined that the Government Order dated 2.6.2010 does in any way affect the selection of the petitioner, even if no appointment has been made and the file has been delayed. Having heard Sri Pandey and having perused the aforesaid orders, the Government Order dated 2.6.2010 completely abandons any future engagement of Shiksha Mitra even if a candidate has been selected. A candidate even if selected has no right vested in him to claim any such appointment. It is only those appointments that were erroneously discontinued that they were saved keeping in view the Division Bench judgment in Km. Sonika Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (1) ADJ 103 . In this case, the petitioner was not appointed. Her mere selection even otherwise does not give any right of appointment as per the decision of the Apex Court. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order dated 19.11.2012 does not suffer from any infirmity and the opinion given by the District Magistrate cannot be questioned. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. _____________