Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
(Application No.37319 of 2010)
1. The application seeks condonation of delay in filing the special appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has not appeared to prosecute the case. Case relates to the year 2010. Nine years have gone by. We find no justifiable reason to adjourn the case to await appearance of the counsel.
3. Having gone through the contents of the affidavit accompanying the application and keeping view that learned counsel for the respondent State and learned counsel for respondent No.3 Mr. Jyotinjay Verma, have not opposed the application, we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal.
4. On request of learned counsel for respondents, the appeal is taken up for hearing today itself.
kkb/ 29.8.2019 Court No. - 2 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 228 of 2010 Appellant :- Smt. Arpana Singh 2007 (S/S/)2009 Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Its Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko.
Counsel for Appellant :- Surya Narayan Mishra,Umajeet Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jyotinjay Verma Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
(Oral)
1. Smt. Arpana Singh has preferred this intra-Court special appeal in challenge to order dated 7.5.2009 rendered in Writ Petition No.2007(S/S) of 2009 titled "Smt. Arpana Singh versus State of U.P. and others."
Vide the impugned order, the writ petition was disposed of while holding that in the course of litigation, the appellant/writ petitioner had crossed her age for selection. It was further held that since the petitioner was not at fault to get appointment, when selection is made, her candidature shall not be rejected on the ground of her being over age, and shall be considered for selection for the next academic session.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has not appeared to prosecute the case. Case relates to the year 2010. Nine years have gone by. We find no justifiable reason to adjourn the case to await appearance of the counsel.
In the circumstances, with the assistance of learned counsel for respondents Mr. Jyotinjay Verma, we have gone through the pleadings and contents of the impugned order.
3. Mr. Verma has pointed out that Shiksha Mitras were appointed for particular academic session. After coming into force The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, Government Order dated 2.6.2010 was issued where-after Shiksha Mitras are not being appointed.
4. We having considered all the relevant facts and circumstances and are of the view that Shiksha Mitras are appointed for a particular academic session. In the case in hand, issue was raised in regard to appointment of Shiksha Mitra for academic session 2001 - 02.
5. On the second count we have taken note of the fact that the Act of 2009 came into force in consequence to which Government Order dated 02.06.2010 was issued. The Government Order was issued so as to ensure that duly qualified and trained teachers are appointed in the interest of qualitative education. After issuance of Government Order dated 02.06.2010, Shiksha Mitras are not being appointed. Apparently, the said Government Order was not brought to the notice of learned Single Judge and therefore, judicial notice of the said Government Order could not be taken.
6. In view of the fact that after 2010, Shiksha Mitras are not being appointed in terms of the Government Order, we find no adjudicable cause of action at this point in time.
7. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.8.2019 kkb/