- (1.) A Division Bench of this Court finding conflicting view expressed by two Division Benches of this Court in Smt. Usha Kumari v. State of U.P. and others, (Special Appeal Defective No. 61 of 2014, decided on 15 January, 2014) Shalini v. State of U.P. and others (Special Appeal No. 294 of 2015, decided on 2 July, 2015) and Smt. Priyanka Mall v. State of U.P. and others, 2015 5 ADJ 333 (DB) vide its order dated 28th September, 2015 referred the following questions for determination by a larger Bench: "Thus, in view of the conflicting views expressed by the Division Benches in Smt. Usha Kumari and Shalini on the one hand and Priyanka Mall on the other, it would be appropriate to refer the following questions for determination by a Larger Bench: (i) Whether a candidate can be denied engagement as a Shiksha Mitra if the process for selection by issuance of an advertisement had commenced prior to the ban imposed by the Government Order dated 2 June 2010 ? (ii) Whether the view expressed by the two Division Benches in Smt. Usha Kumari and Shalini is correct or the view expressed by the Division Bench in Priyanka Mall is correct?" Pursuant to the said reference the matter is placed before us. Before adverting to the issue raised in the reference order and the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we at the outset point out that the issue referred to this larger Bench stands answered by another Full Bench of this Court, in which one of us (Hon. Mr. Justice Dilip B. Bhosale, Chief Justice) was a Member, after the present reference order, on 16th December, 2016 in Dinesh Chandra Shukla v. State of U.P. and others, 2017 3 ADJ 282 (FB). In Dinesh Chandra Shukla the following questions of law were referred by a Division Bench of this Court: "(a) Whether inclusion of the name of a person in the select panel with reference to an advertisement published prior to the enforcement of the Government Order dated 02.06.2010 i.e. 01.04.2010 would confer any right of appointment even after 01.04.2010. (b) Whether in view of the Government Order dated 02.06.2010 no fresh appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra can be made even if the selection had taken place earlier. (c) Whether the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Usha Kumari and Sheela Yadav is the correct law."
(2.) The Full Bench precisely dealt with this aspect and accordingly answered the reference in the following terms: "6. It is clear from the judgment of the larger Bench in Sandhya Singh, that mere selection or mere inclusion of name in the select list does not confer any right upon the selected candidate and, hence, the selected candidate, to whom the appointment is not offered, cannot claim, as a right, for appointment in view of the Right to Education Act, 2009 and the Government Order dated 02.06.2010. None of the counsel for the parties made any attempt to persuade us to take a differing view than the view taken by the Full Bench in Sandhya Singh . In the circumstances, we answer the first question in the negative; the second question in the affirmative and, insofar as the third question is concerned, we hold that the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Usha Kumari and Sheela Yadav is not the correct enunciation of the law."
(3.) Thus, the larger Bench in Dinesh Chandra Shukla has already held that Smt. Usha Kumari's case and Smt. Sheela Yadav's case have not been correctly decided.;