SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.3.2008 passed by the District Magistrate Siddharth Nagar, rejecting his repre­sentation against non-renewal on the post of Shiksha Mitra for the session 2007-08. The petitioner was initially selected on the post of Shiksha Mitra in December 2002 for the Session 2002-03 and in accordance with Government Order, his engagement was renewed on year to year basis up to 2006-07, which came to an end on 31.5.2007. The Gram Shiksha Samiti, however, resolved not to renew the engagement of the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra for the session 2007-08 where against he made representation dated 4.10.2007. The said representation having not been decided, he approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 54888 of 2007, which was disposed of by this Court on 12.11.2007 directing the District Magistrate to decide his representation and till then, the fresh selection in pursu­ance of the advertisement dated 3.10.2007 with regard to the institution where the petitioner was working was not to be given effect. The District Magistrate, pursu­ant to the said order, has considered and rejected the petitioner's representation observing that the Gram Shiksha Samiti by 2/3 majority has passed the resolu­tion for not recommending petitioner's renewal on the post of Shiksha Mitra. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Gram Shiksha Samiti has not recorded any reason for denying renewal to the petitioner's employment. Where a collective body is required to take a decision by passing a resolution, there is no requirement of law that such resolution must contain a reason inas­much various persons for different reasons may come to the same conclusion and pass a resolution that itself is sufficient and does not warrant any particular reason to be assigned.
(2.) MOREOVER , this is a case which shows that on account of litigation for employment as Shiksha Mitra, the purpose of the very scheme, which was launched to spread education, is being frustrated inasmuch for the session 2007-08, the petitioner has been able to stop appointment of Shiksha Mitra. The ses­sion 2007-08 would have ended on 31.5.2008 and the petitioner's representation having been decided on 20.3.2008, it is evident that at least till that date, no Shiksha Mitra could have been appointed in the institution where the petitioner was working on account of litigation in which the petitioner involved the said insti­tution. It is appropriate at this stage to remind the observation made by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 305 of 2008, Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 3.3.2008 as under: "Everybody 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." Since the petitioner has been declined renewal by 2/3 majority of the Gram Shiksha Samiti, which is recommendatory body and the same has been ac­cepted by the District Magistrate, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order, impugned in this writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(3.) HOWEVER , learned Counsel for the petitioner, at this stage stated that de­spite the order of District Magistrate, he has not been paid honorarium for the period he has worked as Shiksha Mitra. If it is so, it is open to the petitioner to approach the District Magistrate bringing this fact to his notice and this Court has no doubt that the District Magistrate shall take appropriate action in this regard expeditiously.;