COURT NO. 32
Special Appeal No. 587 of 2010
Smt. Meera Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others
With
Special Appeal No. 623 of 2010
Smt. Usha Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others.
*******
Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.
Hon’ble Abhinava Upadhya, J.
(Delivered by Hon’ble Abhinava Upadhya, J.)
These are two appeals against a common judgment dated
23.3.2010 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, hence they are heard
together and are being decided by this judgment.
In Special, Appeal No. 587 of 2010, Smt. Meera Singh is the
appellant and is represented by Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Amit Saxena. In this appeal Smt. Usha
Singh has been arrayed as respondent no. 6.
In Special Appeal No. 623 of 2010, the appellant Smt. Usha
Singh is represented by Sri P.S. Baghel, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Sri K.N. Singh. In this appeal Smt. Meera Singh has been
arrayed as respondent no. 6.
We have heard the learned senior counsel Sri P.N. Saxena for
Smt. Meera Singh and the learned senior counsel Sri P.S. Baghel for
Smt. Usha Singh and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
State authorities.
It is submitted on behalf of the appellant in Special Appeal No.
587 of 2010 that pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.3.2006
applications were invited for engagement of Shiksha Mitra in
Prathamik Vidyalaya, Razai, Vikas Khand Lalganj, district Mirzapur.
The last date for submission of forms was fixed as 27.3.2006. In
2
response to the advertisement, the appellant Smt. Meera Singh along
with three others applied. A merit list was drawn. The appellant Smt.
Meera Singh was at serial no. 3. Candidate at serial No. 1 was a
male candidate and, therefore, was ineligible, the post being reserved
for female candidates. Smt. Suman Singh was at serial No. 2 and had
higher quality point marks i.e. 120.2 and, therefore, her name was
proposed by the Village Level Committee for selection. The appellant
Smt. Meera Singh raised an objection that Smt. Suman Singh is
under age. The Village Level Committee considered the objection in
its meeting held on 3.4.2006 and found Smt. Suman Singh ineligible
being under age and, therefore, the name of Smt. Meera Singh,
appellant was proposed for selection being second highest in merit.
Before any letter of appointment could be issued to Smt. Meera
Singh, respondent no. 6 Smt. Usha Singh came up with a complaint
on 4.4.2006 alleging that when on 27.3.2006 at about 4 PM she went
to submit her form before Sri Ram Narain Vishwakarma, Secretary of
the Village Level Committee and Head Master of the institution, who
was authorized for accepting the forms, he was engaged in an
altercation with the local villagers and amongst them few of the unruly
musclemen of the village prevented her from submitting the form and
also extended threat to her. It is also alleged that subsequently Sri
Ram Narain Vishwakarma had also filed an affidavit on 15.4.2006
submitting that Smt. Usha Singh was actually prevented from
submitting her form. On 27.4.2006 Smt. Usha Singh again made a
representation that her form should be accepted as she had
approached the concerned centre within time for submission of form
but was unduly prevented from doing so. It appears that considering
the complaint of Smt. Usha Singh and the affidavit of Sri Ram Narain
Vishwakarma, no appointment of the selected candidate could be
made which resulted in Smt. Usha Singh filing a Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 27914 of 2006. This Court vide its order dated 22.5.2006,
directed the District Magistrate of the area to consider the
3
representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate order on the
same.
The District Magistrate after calling response from both the
candidates, namely, Smt. Meera Singh and Smt. Usha Singh, and
considering the affidavit of Secretary Village Level Committee, Ram
Narain Vishwakarma, decided the representation in favour of Smt.
Usha Singh holding that due to no fault of her she was prevented
from submission of form and being a better candidate than Smt.
Meera Singh, should be considered for selection and directed the
Village Level Committee to re-draw the merit list taking into account
the form of Smt. Usha Singh and submit fresh proposal.
Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the District Magistrate,
Smt. Usha Singh, respondent no. 6 was given appointment as
Shiksha Mitra in the aforesaid institution and she started to function
as such.
Aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate dated
22.5.2006, Smt. Meera Singh, the appellant agitated her claim before
this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45967 of 2006 on the
ground that respondent no. 6 Smt. Usha Singh was not even an
applicant before the Village Level Committee which had only four
applications on the date of consideration, i.e. 28.3.2006. According to
the advertisement dated 16.3.2006, last date for submission of
application forms was only up to 27.3.2006. Respondent No.6 Smt.
Usha Singh did not submit her form till the last date. The District
Magistrate by directing the inclusion of application-form beyond the
last date, has acted in contravention of the procedure prescribed in
the G.O. and the advertisement dated 16.3.2006, which has resulted
in adversely affecting the claim of the appellant for being appointed
as Shiksha Mitra inspite of being highest in merit list as eligible
candidate.
4
We have carefully considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties and have perused the judgment of the
Hon’ble Single Judge impugned in these appeals.
The Hon’ble Single Judge upon the aforesaid facts, arrived at a
conclusion that the controversy involved in the present case is such
which merit re-advertisement of the post inviting fresh applications
and getting most meritorious selected for the purpose of the scheme.
We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view
expressed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. The Shiksha Mitra scheme is
not an employment generating scheme but it is for the purpose of
advancing national programme funded by the Central Government
known as ‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’. The scheme of Shiksha Mitra has
been implemented vide Government Order dated 26.5.1999. The
purpose of scheme is to provide education to the children of the
village by voluntary participation of qualified youths of that village by
their term appointment in the existing basic schools on vacancies of
assistant teachers keeping in mind the norms of teacher and tought
ratio. Shiksha Mitras do not hold any post in the institution and the
recruitment rules ordinarily applicable to the employees of the State
or of teachers in educational institutions are not applicable in their
case and no constitutional scheme govern their selection, recruitment
and engagement. They are appointed for one year on honorarium
under the scheme which is not permanent in nature. They do not hold
any civil post and their engagement/selection is for the sole purpose
of carrying out the objects of the programme. Keeping in view the
aforesaid, if such a non statutory engagements are embroiled in
litigation for the past five years, it would only be just and proper to
direct for fresh selection putting an end to the disputes. Keeping this
in view, we are of the considered opinion that there is no good ground
to take a different view other than that expressed by the Hon’ble
5
Single Judge.
In view of the discussions made above, both these appeals fail
and are dismissed.
Dated: 10.5.2010
SA