Km. Anita vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others
2014 Latest Caselaw 9889 ALL

Citation : 2014 Latest Caselaw 9889 ALL
Judgement Date : 12 December, 2014

Allahabad High Court

Km. Anita vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 12 December, 2014

Bench: Arun Tandon, Arvind Kumar Mishra-I




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?AFR 
 
Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1018 of 2014
 

 
Appellant :- Km. Anita
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manu Singh,Y.S. Bohra
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

The Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of Hon'ble Single Judge dated 24.9.2014, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing of the order dated 3rd June, 2009, whereby her engagement as Shikshamitra has been terminated and for direction to reinstate the petitioner as Shikshamitra at the Prathmik Vidyalay, district Aligarh had been dismissed.

Hon'ble Single Judge, has held that the scheme of Shikshamitra itself has been winding up in the State of Uttar Pradesh under the Government Order dated 2nd June, 2010. The impact of such wound up the scheme has been considered by Full Bench of the High Court in the case of Km. Sandhya Singh and others v. State of U.P. & others, 2013 (7) ADJ 1(FB). The Writ Court dismissed the petition after observing that no fresh appointment of Shikshamitra can now be made.

Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order so passed submitted before us that her was not a case of fresh appointment. The petitioner had approached this Court against the order of termination of her engagement and therefore, if the Court has examined the merit of the order of the termination and had come to conclusion that the petition had merit and order had to be set aside, then relief of reinstatement as Shikshamitra could be granted. This cannot be equated with fresh appointment of Shikshamitra. He explains that the Government Order dated 2nd June, 2010 and the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Km. Sandhya Singh and others v. State of U.P. & others, 2013 (7) ADJ 1(FB) had no application in the facts of her case.

We may record that there may be some substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner was strictly not a case for fresh appointment so as to hit by Government Order dated 2.6..2010 as explained by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Km. Sandhya Singh (Supra). We may record that Full Bench had examined the issue as to whether any person, who had been selected prior to the scheme having been wound up could still be appointed as Shikshamitra after 2.6.2010 or not. The issue before the Full Bench was not that of legality of an order of termination of an appointed of Shikshamitra. Learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be corrected in pointing out that all those, who have been actually appointed as Shikshamitra prior to 2nd June, 2010 are still and continuing to function as Shikshamitra even today.

We in the facts and circumstances of the case, agree with the final decision taken by the Hon'ble Single Judge but for different reasons.

From the record of the present writ petition, we find that the engagement of the petitioner was put to an end under an order dated 3rd June 2009. The petitioner had chosen to challenge the said order by means of the writ petition filed in the month of September 2014 that is after more than five years and three months. The engagement is contractual for a period of one year with a right of renewal for the next year if the work is found to be satisfactory. Copy of the writ petition is enclosed along with the memo of this appeal. We find that it is completely silent as to what has happened between 2.6.2009 to 2.6.2010 with regard to the post of Shikshamitra on which the petitioner was earlier working. It is not known to us as to whether any person was appointed in her place as Shikshamitra after her appointment was terminated or not. It is also not known who at present is working on the post in question. In absence of complete facts having been disclosed to the Court no relief can be granted in as much as if there is any person working on the post against which petitioner was earlier engaged as Shikshamitra than there cannot be a direction for the petitioner being reinstated in as much as two persons cannot be permitted to work on the same post of Shikshamitra. In totality of the circumstances on record we agree with the final decision of the Hon'ble Single Judge.

This Special Appeal, therefore, dismissed.

Order Date :- 12.12.2014