RAKESH TIWARI, J. - (1.) THIS matter pertains to appointment of Siksha Mitra for session 2006-07.
(2.) SRI A.N. Rai learned counsel for the petitioner states that law has now been settled in Special Appeal No. 305 of 2008 Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of , U. P. and others, 2008 (3) ESC 1749, to the effect that since the scheme of Shiksha Mitra is to spread education. Appointment under the said scheme is only for one year and it is not a scheme for continuous employment, hence no right to continue on such post could be claimed. As a matter of right the appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra is to be made on year to year basis hence a direction has been issued to start the procedure to appoint Shiksha Mitra in not session. This order appears to have been passed as every year the best candidates is available to teach for a year in the scheme. Relevant paragraphs are as under: "The facts of this matter show that a good scheme of Shiksha Mitra derailed because of litigation and the orders passed by the Government officials. This is a case where the appintment 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.
(3.) 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.;