Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5 and perused the record.
Learned counsel for respondent no. 5 states that in view of order passed by this Court on 6.6.2008, the petitioner has not been given the benefits admissible to him simply on the ground that the writ petition is pending.
From the perusal of order dated 6.6.2008,it is clear that this Court while passing the said order has merely provided that selection /appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra in question shall remain subject to the result of the writ petition. Admittedly, no selection /appointment has been held or made subsequent to the date of filing the writ petition. There is no stay order in the writ petition on the basis of which District Authorities may not act in accordance with law. Since the Scheme of Shiksha Mistra is not continued after the year 2010 , it was for the the District Authorities to have decided about any such appointment , therefore, the matter as regards the claim of the petitioner or a rival claim of respondent no. 5 cannot be looked into on the basis of any factual dispute at this stage.
In case, there is any surviving grievance, the petitioner may approach the next higher authority, who may look into the matter.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 15.5.2014 aks ( Attau Rahman Masoodi J. )