Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) PETITIONER claims that he has been selected as Shiksha Mitra by the Gaon Shiksha Samiti, Village Panchayat Hussainpur, Kshetra, District-Jaunpur whereas respondent No. 6 claims that he is Head Master of the Primary School Itayon, Gram Panchayat Hussainpur, Block-Ram Nagar, District-Jaunpur in which the post of Shiksha Mitra is to be filled up by the aforesaid Gaon Samiti. Post of Shiksha Mitra is contractual for a period of one year only. The scheme of Shiksha Mitra is for spreading education by giving appointments to the best persons available every year for this purpose and is not a scheme for continuous employment as has been held in Special Appeal No. 305 of 2008 Sanjai Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. and others, 2008 (3) ESC 1749. The petitioner was selected as Shiksha Mitra for academic session 2005-2006. His contractual appointment has been renewed for the session 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. The Gaon Shiksha Samiti has proposed for renewal of his appointment for the session 2008-2009, but has been refused joining by the head mistress on the ground that no letter of appointment has been issued to him for teaching in the session 2008-2009. It has been held in the cases of Sanjay Kumar Singh (supra) that no person has a right to continue on the post of Shiksha Mitra as a matter of right and that appointment on the post as Shiksha Mitra is to be made on year to year basis hence direction was made in that case to initiate the procedure for appointment of Shiksha Mitra in the next session. This order appears to have been passed for appointment of the best candidate every year to teach under the scheme. The relevant excerpt of the aforesaid judgment is as under : "The facts of this matter show that a good scheme of Shiksha Mitra is derailed because of litigation and the orders passed by the Government officials. This is a case where the appointment was to be made for the academic year 2005-06 in a village in district Basti. The advertisement itself was however given at the end of the academic year on 8th April, 2006. This selection procedure went on thereafter until 26th November, 2006 and the appellant claims to have joined on 7.2.2007. But by a stay order the appellant was again out of job after a couple of days. The consequence is that thereafter there has been no teacher at all working as Shiksha Mitra in the institution. There have been orders by the District Magistrate and then by the Courts also. Every body is forgetting that the scheme of Shiksha Mitra is to spread education and it is not a scheme for employment. What is being given is an honorarium to the concerned teacher. The appointment comes to an end at the end of the academic year, with right to continue if the performance is good. In the instant case every body has forgotten this scheme of Shiksha Mitra and the litigation is going on continuously. In the circumstances since the concerned academic year has elapsed long back and since nobody is appointed, there cannot be any appointment either of the petitioner or of the respondent No. 7. The prayer of appointment is in the nature of specific relief and the specific relief can be granted only when one makes out a case. No such case is made out by both of them and the appeal, as well as the writ petition both, stand disposed of with this order. We direct the concerned District Magistrate to start the procedure to appointment of Shiksha Mitra in that particular village forthwith, for the academic year 2008-09 and see to it that the selection and appointment of Shiksha Mitra is done well before the academic year starts on 1.7.2008. The appellant and the respondent No. 7 will both be eligible to participate in the selection procedure and they will be considered on their merit. As far as the appellant is concerned, the appellant is contending that he is a handicapped person and suffers from disability. The judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Shiv Kumar Singh Yadav v. State of U. P. and others, 2001 (3) AWC 1972 has been relied upon against the appellant which held that for grant of any such concession, the disability is to be of 40%. In that case, the rule applied is under the Central law and not under the State Act. In any case, this is the aspect which the authority should consider. We leave the matter to them. With the aforesaid observations / directions this appeal and the writ petition both stand disposed of".
(3.) IT follows that since the scheme provide for year to year appointment of Shiksha Mitra by selection of best available candidate hence there can be no automatic renewal. Every candidate including the one who has taught in the last session if eligible is liable to compete in the selection process and cannot continue with following selection process as it would be against the spirit of the scheme. On the argument advanced by the parties, it appears that the question of legality and validity of appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra is in dispute.;