Vimlesh Kumar Shukla, J. - (1.) NAMITA Singh is before this Court assailing the validity of the judgment dated 30th September, 2015 passed by learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that petitioner -appellant has been engaged as Siksha Mitra in Academic Session 2003 -04 and she claims to have continued to perform and discharge her duties upto Academic Session 2006 -07 and then petitioner -appellant has come up with the case that she was not permitted to discharge her duties resulting in impelling her to file writ petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No. 50963 of 2007 (Namita Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) and this Court on 12th October, 2007 asked the District Magistrate to look into the grievance of the petitioner -appellant and pass appropriate orders on the same. In consonance with the directives issued by this Court, the District Magistrate concerned took up the matter and on 30th January, 2008 found that the services of petitioner -appellant had been recommended for being dispensed with by resolution of Village Education Committee, but on the pretext and premises that the order of disengagement has not been passed by competent authority, which was the Committee headed by Chief Development Officer, a mention was made that resolution of the Village Education Committee could not be given effect too, but noticing the record of service of petitioner -appellant, orders have been passed for disengagement of petitioner -appellant as Siksha Mitra and she has been directed to be paid honorarium upto the date of disposal of her representation. During this interregnum period, with all the activities on -going, the State Government took a policy decision on 10th July, 2007 making provision for undertaking the training of Special B.T.C. Course and in the said scheme in question dated 10th July, 2007, 10% seats were reserved for Siksha Mitra, who has worked for at least three academic sessions. Relevant clause of the said Government Order is being extracted below:
(3.) PETITIONER -appellant applied for being permitted to undertake training programme and she was selected. It appears that during the training period, complaint has been made that she has succeeded to get her candidature accepted based on incorrect facts and then petitioner -appellant was subjected to a show cause notice. Petitioner -appellant submitted her reply and then the impugned order dated 2nd December, 2008 has been passed by Principal, District Institute of Education and Training (D.I.E.T.), Rai Bareilly for cancelling the candidature of petitioner -appellant, who has been selected for Special B.T.C. Course and this action of Principal, D.I.E.T. has impelled petitioner -appellant to be before this Court and this Court on 18th December, 2008 proceeded to dismiss the writ petition in question on the plea that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as the order impugned was of Principal, D.I.E.T., Rai Bareilly. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner -appellant has preferred Special Appeal No. 39 of 2009 (Namita Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) and Special Appeal Bench of this Court on 5th February, 2009 proceeded to allow the said Special Appeal and took the view that part of cause of action has arisen at Fatehpur, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and accordingly, the writ petition is also maintainable at Allahabad and asked the learned Single Judge to decide the matter on merits and pursuant to the said remand order, the learned Single Judge took up the matter and refused to accord any relief to the petitioner -appellant and the said judgment of learned Single Judge has made the petitioner -appellant to be once again before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 30th September, 2015.;