- (1.) IN the year 2004 the vacancy of Shiksha Mitra was notified in the village Hathiwadtal, Post and Block Uska Bazaar, Tehsil Navgarh, District Siddharth Nagar. The appellant applied for the same. Since no eligible candidate of the said village in question was available for such appointment, the application of the appellant, who was a resident of a different village, but of same Nyaya Panchayat, was considered. She was found eligible and suitable for the post and was thus given appointment as Shiksha Mitra for the academic session 2004-05, which was also renewed from time to time up till the academic session 2007-08.
(2.) HOWEVER , by now, respondent No. 5, who belongs to the same village, became eligible for being considered and appointed as Shiksha Mitra. Thus, she raised objection to the renewal of the appellant's appointment. When the same was not considered, she preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14334 of 2007, which was disposed of with the direction to the District Magistrate to decide her representation. By the order dated 12.12.2007 the District Magistrate allowed her representation and cancelled the appointment of the appellant and directed that fresh selection be made for the appointment of Shiksha Mitra for the village in question. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3471 of 2008. The Hon'ble Single Judge, vide judgment and order dated 18.1.2008, allowed the same and set aside the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate. By the said order the petitioner-appellant has, however; been permit­ted to work as Shiksha Mitra till the end of academic session 2007-08, whereafter the District Level Committee was to ensure fresh appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra for the next session. It was, however, made clear by the writ Court that the renewal of the petitioner would not take place after the end of academic session 2007-08. It is this latter part of the judgment and order dated 18.1.2008 relating to his non-consideration of renewal, by which the appellant is aggrieved and hence, this special appeal. Heard Shri Indra Raj Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant; learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Shri Anuj Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 and Shri T.S. Shukla, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting-respondent No. 5 and also perused the record.
(3.) THE submission of the appellant is that as per the scheme relating" to the appointment of Shiksha Mitra issued on 1.7.2001, which is still applicable, a Shiksha Mitra, once appointed, would be entitled to be considered for renewal, as long as his work and conduct is found satisfactory. Learned Counsel for the ap­pellant, thus, contended that since the work and conduct of the appellant has been found satisfactory, she is entitled to renewal for the subsequent year also and the direction issued by the Hon'ble Single Judge for not considering the renewal of the appellant after the academic session 2007-08 was uncalled for and against the provisions of the scheme.;