- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 3.10.2007. It appears from the order under appeal that the learned counsel for the petitioner was not present and in the presence of the learned counsel for the respondents, on his submission, the writ petition has been dismissed on merit instead of dismissing the writ petition for want of prosecution which could have enabled the appellant to pursue the remedy of restoration and seeking hearing on merit.
(2.) WE have also earlier made it clear and we again make it clear that where the learned counsel for the petitioner is not present, the ordinary course is either to postpone the hearing or to dismiss it for want of prosecution but in no circumstances it is to be decided on merit. The same view has also been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of matters. Looking to facts and circumstances, we propose to decide the case on merit with the consent of the parties.
(3.) THE petitioner has been appointed on 12.5.2003 as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the Primary School, Makarpur. He was holding a certificate of Higher Secondary which was the eligibility qualification required then. Thereafter, vide Government circular dated 21.4.2005 the qualification for Shiksha Mitra was raised to Intermediate. Thus while the future appointment of candidates below Matric was prohibited and the persons already appointed on the basis of their qualifications of Matriculation were provided 33 months' time to acquire the higher qualification prescribed for their further continuance in service. It was envisaged that existing Shiksha Mitras, who are. not Intermediate shall obtain such qualification within 33 months, failing which services of such Shiksha Mitras were liable to be terminated. Those who acquired such qualifications were to continue in service.;