- (1.) THIS writ petition was listed yesterday in the cause list when one of the counsel for petitioner sought adjournment on account of illness though there are two counsels appearing for petitioner, namely, Sri Nand Kishore and Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey. The Court granted indulgence and directed this matter to be taken up today. Today again one of the counsel, namely, Sri Nand Kishore has sought adjournment. Repeated adjournments sought by learned counsel for the petitioner is not to be granted as a matter of right. Further, when there are more than one counsel and one of them has sought adjournment on the ground of illness, it is open to the Court to reject the request for adjournment. A Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 887 of 1997, Ashwani Kumar Vs. D. Sen Gupta and others, decided on 23.03.2006 in somewhat similar circumstances taking the same view reject the request for adjournment observing as under: "Since names of a number of counsels are printed in the cause list for the appellant and therefore, we are not inclined to adjourn this matter only on the ground of illness of one, out of five learned counsels for the appellant."
(2.) IN the circumstances, I decline to adjourn the matter. The other counsel, namely, Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey has not appeared though the case has been called in revised. However, I have perused the record. The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider him for the post of Shiksha Mitra. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner has been selected for the post in question. Even otherwise, after enforcement of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2009") and the Regulations framed under the persons who do not possess the requisite qualification prescribed therein cannot be appointed to impart education in Primary Schools. This issue has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 1955 of 2010 (Tarun Prakash Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Others) decided on 8.12.2010 and it has been held therein that after promulgation of the said Act, the appointment of Shiksha Mitra cannot be made. Moreover, in view of Government Order dated 02.6.2010 since no further appointment can be made, no direction can be issued after promulgation of the said Act for making appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra which would be in the teeth of the provisions of the said Act. The aforesaid decision has been reiterated and followed in Special Appeal (Def.) No. 38 of 2011 (Vikash Kumar Malviya Vs. State of U.P. & others) decided on 12.01.2011.
(3.) THIS Court in its judgment dated 12.12.2011 in Writ Petition No. 70682 of 2011 (Sarita Shukla & Others Vs. State Of U.P. and Others), having relied on provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and Rules framed thereunder as well as the provisions of Act, 2009 and Regulations framed by NCTE under Section 23 of Act, 2009, has clearly observed that after enforcement of Act, 2009 no appointment can be made on the post of Assistant Teacher in a Primary institution if the person does not possess the qualification prescribed by NCTE in the Regulations notified under Section 23 of Act, 2009. In view of above since no person can be allowed to be appointed as Shiksha Mitra as on date and in any case after the enforcement of Act, 2009 and regulations framed thereunder to impart education to the students of primary schools as that would be in the teeth of statutory provisions, no direction for such appointment can be issued in favour of petitioner.;