- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench judgment in the case of Km. Seema v. State of U.P. and others, in Special Appeal No. 1565 of 2010 decided on 28.9.2010. The ratio of the aforesaid decision in relation to the period for which leave can be extended, is as follows: "In our opinion, the Government Orders do not contemplate grant of any leave to a Shiksha Mitra. A perusal of the Government Orders dated 15.6.2007 would indicate that there is no provision for grant of medical leave except for a period of three months of maternity leave that too even for the first two deliveries. In the instant case, the appellant admittedly is unmarried and is a spinster. She was, therefore, not entitled for any such leave and the learned counsel has been unable to point out any provision under which the leave availed of by the appellant, was a validly sanctioned leave".
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant then contends that the benefit of the said judgment has to be extended keeping in view the operative portion of the said judgment.
(3.) Having considered the submissions raised, the ratio of the judgment which is applicable on the facts of the present case has been extracted here-in-above. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in refusing to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant. There is no merit in the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant then submits that the finding with regard to forgery is not founded on correct facts. In this regard, it would be relevant to submit that even otherwise no relief can be granted to a Shiksha Mitra keeping in view the fact that the scheme itself has been disbanded in the year 2010. It would be a futile exercise at this stage even on the said issue which has been raised on the facts of the present case where admittedly no relief can be granted. The finding on forgery would not be required to be assessed as it would not be of any relevance so as to affect the appellant adversely in future. The appeal is dismissed.;