Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
(Application No. 98767 of 2011)
1. The application seeks condonation of delay in filing the special appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner has not appeared to address arguments.
3. Having gone through the contents of the affidavit accompanying the application and keeping in view that no objection to the application has been filed on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner, we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal.
3. The application is allowed.
Order Date :- 27.8.2019 prabhat Court No. - 2 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 658 of 2011 Appellant :- District Basic Education Pratapgarh 4519 (S/S)2011 Respondent :- Keshav Pratap Yadav Counsel for Appellant :- A.M.Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Jai Prakash Singh,Piyush Chandra Agarwal,Rajesh Tiwari Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
(Oral)
1. District Basic Education Officer, Pratapgarh has preferred this Special Appeal in challenge to order dated 28.7.2011 rendered while dealing with writ petition no. 4519 (S/S) of 2011 titled 'Keshav Pratap Yadav versus State of U.P. and others'. Vide the impugned order, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of order dated 12.7.2011 rendered in writ petition no. 3938 (S/S) of 2011.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant or respondent has not appeared. The appeal relates to the year 2011. Eight years have gone by. We find no justifiable reason to adjourn the matter to await appearance of the counsels, particularly considering the fact that the issue relates to selection and appointment of Shiksha Mitras.
3. From the pleadings it can be safely deciphered that the issue is in relation to appointment of Shiksha Mitra for the academic year 2008. It has been pleaded that Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 had come into force. The said legislation was required to be taken into account by the learned Single Judge. It has been pleaded that in any case appointment of Shiksha Mitra was for an academic session and therefore benefits such as provided vide impugned order could not have been provided vide impugned order in the year 2011.
4. Considering the fact that the writ petition was filed for appointment of petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra; the petitioner applied for the post of Shiksha Mitra under advertisement dated 28.8.2008; the selection of petitioner was sent for approval by Gram Shiksha Samiti to Basic Shiksha Adhikari Pratapgarh/District Magistrate and the matter was pending, we are of the view that at this point in time, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. After coming into force the Right to Education, Act 2009 (supra), Government Order was issued by the State not to engage Shiksha Mitras in the interest of qualitative education.
5. For the reasons given above, no relief could have been granted to the respondent- writ petitioner in the year 2011, as has been done by the impugned order.
6. The appeal is disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.8.2019 prabhat