ALLAHABAD HIGHCOURT, SAMAYOJAN, SHIKSHAMITRA : समायोजन प्रक्रिया में शिक्षामित्रों को सहायक अध्यापकों के स्वीकृत पदों के सापेक्ष जनशक्ति में शामिल किए जाने सम्बन्धी बीएसए सुल्तानपुर के आदेश पर माननीय उच्च न्यायालय की रोक क्लिक कर जारी आदेश देखें
Court No. - 23
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 25562 of 2018
Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Basic
Education, Lucknow & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Shukla,Prithvish
Mishra,Ramesh Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,J.B.S.Rathour
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
Notice on behalf of respondent no.1 has been accepted by
the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel, whereas
notice on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4 has been
accepted by Sri J.B.S.Rathour.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners are
challenging Clause-3 of the order dated 25.8.2018, issued
by the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur, whereby
it has been resolved that the Shiksha Mitra appointed in
Primary Schools under non-formal scheme shall be treated
to be appointed against the sanctioned post of teachers.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Ramesh Pandey, is that on 20.7.2018, State Government
came-forward with a scheme to make adjustment/mutual
transfer in the Primary Schools within the district, wherein
a committee has been constituted to consider the claim of
teachers for the adjustment/mutual transfer. In the
Scheme, it has been resolved that teachers shall be
adjusted in the ratio of 1;40 maximum and 1;20 minimum
and while making adjustment the policy of last in, first out
shall be followed, wherein there is no stipulation that the
Shiksha Mitra working in Primary Schools shall be treated
to be appointed against the sanctioned post. He further
submitted that the Shiksha Mitra appointed in Primary
Schools were granted appointment as teacher and the
matter went up to the Supreme Court in the case of State
of U.P vs. Anand Kumar Yadav, which was decided by the
Supreme Court holding that the appointment of the
Shiksha Mitra in Primary Schools lacking qualification
appointment is dehors the rules. The Supreme Court
further recorded that the State Government can consider
the claim of Shiksha Mitra for their engagement as Shiksha
Mitra and in regard to the grant of weightage in making
recruitment proceeding on the post of Assistant Teachers.
He further submitted that once the controversy has been
decided up to the Supreme Court that Siksha Mitra are not
teachers they have been appointed on contract basis
against no post, therefore, the Clause-3 of the order of the
District Basic Education Officer dated 25.8.2018, is
contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court as well as the Government Order dated 20.7.2018.
On the other hand, learned standing counsel as well as Sri
J.B.S.Rathour appearing on behalf of the respondents
submitted that the decision was taken by the Chairman of
the Committee, who is District Magistrate and on that
basis, the District Basic Education Officer issued letter
dated 25.8.2018. The same does not suffer from any
infirmity or illegality and is a just and valid order.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record. On perusal of the Government
Order dated 20.7.2018, it is apparent on the face of it that
there is no recital that while following the ratio of students
and teachers, the Shiksha Mitras working under non formal
scheme shall be treated to be teachers appointed in
accordance with the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers)
Service Rules, 1981. The submission advanced by Sri
Ramesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, that
claim of the Shiksha Mitras working in primary schools,
who were designated as teacher was considered by this
Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the engagement
of Shiksha Mitras as teachers is de hors the rules and after
holding that they are not the teachers, given liberty to the
State Government to re-engage them as Shiksha Mitras
and the State Government may take policy decision to give
some relaxation while making appointment on the post of
teacher. Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the State Government took a decision to re-engage
the Shiksha Mitras in the primary schools run and managed
by Board of Basic Education as they were discharging
duties prior to appointment as Assistant Teachers. The
State Government to maintain the quality of education to
the students admitted in the primary schools, is
maintaining the ratio of students and teachers. By making
amendment under Article 21-A in the Constitution of India,
the enactment has been made, which is known as The
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009 and rules have been framed thereunder. The purpose
of the said act is to provide quality of education to the
students admitted in the institutions of rural areas as well
as the city areas. Thus, the Shiksha Mitras working in
primary schools cannot be termed to be a teacher
appointed under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education
(Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. Therefore, Clause-3 of the
order dated 25.08.2018, treating Shiksha Mitras to be
teacher appointed against sanctioned post is misconceived
and contrary to the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service
Rules, 1981.
In view of the above, the petitioners have made out a
prima facie case for grant of interim order.
Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is
granted 03 weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within 02 weeks thereafter. List this petition after expiry of the aforesaid period. In the meantime, the Shiksha Mitra appointed in the Primary Schools shall not be treated to be appointed against the sanctioned post of Assistant Teachers. Order Date :- 10.9.2018 m.a.
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 25562 of 2018
Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Basic
Education, Lucknow & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Shukla,Prithvish
Mishra,Ramesh Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,J.B.S.Rathour
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
Notice on behalf of respondent no.1 has been accepted by
the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel, whereas
notice on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4 has been
accepted by Sri J.B.S.Rathour.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners are
challenging Clause-3 of the order dated 25.8.2018, issued
by the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur, whereby
it has been resolved that the Shiksha Mitra appointed in
Primary Schools under non-formal scheme shall be treated
to be appointed against the sanctioned post of teachers.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Ramesh Pandey, is that on 20.7.2018, State Government
came-forward with a scheme to make adjustment/mutual
transfer in the Primary Schools within the district, wherein
a committee has been constituted to consider the claim of
teachers for the adjustment/mutual transfer. In the
Scheme, it has been resolved that teachers shall be
adjusted in the ratio of 1;40 maximum and 1;20 minimum
and while making adjustment the policy of last in, first out
shall be followed, wherein there is no stipulation that the
Shiksha Mitra working in Primary Schools shall be treated
to be appointed against the sanctioned post. He further
submitted that the Shiksha Mitra appointed in Primary
Schools were granted appointment as teacher and the
matter went up to the Supreme Court in the case of State
of U.P vs. Anand Kumar Yadav, which was decided by the
Supreme Court holding that the appointment of the
Shiksha Mitra in Primary Schools lacking qualification
appointment is dehors the rules. The Supreme Court
further recorded that the State Government can consider
the claim of Shiksha Mitra for their engagement as Shiksha
Mitra and in regard to the grant of weightage in making
recruitment proceeding on the post of Assistant Teachers.
He further submitted that once the controversy has been
decided up to the Supreme Court that Siksha Mitra are not
teachers they have been appointed on contract basis
against no post, therefore, the Clause-3 of the order of the
District Basic Education Officer dated 25.8.2018, is
contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court as well as the Government Order dated 20.7.2018.
On the other hand, learned standing counsel as well as Sri
J.B.S.Rathour appearing on behalf of the respondents
submitted that the decision was taken by the Chairman of
the Committee, who is District Magistrate and on that
basis, the District Basic Education Officer issued letter
dated 25.8.2018. The same does not suffer from any
infirmity or illegality and is a just and valid order.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record. On perusal of the Government
Order dated 20.7.2018, it is apparent on the face of it that
there is no recital that while following the ratio of students
and teachers, the Shiksha Mitras working under non formal
scheme shall be treated to be teachers appointed in
accordance with the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers)
Service Rules, 1981. The submission advanced by Sri
Ramesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, that
claim of the Shiksha Mitras working in primary schools,
who were designated as teacher was considered by this
Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the engagement
of Shiksha Mitras as teachers is de hors the rules and after
holding that they are not the teachers, given liberty to the
State Government to re-engage them as Shiksha Mitras
and the State Government may take policy decision to give
some relaxation while making appointment on the post of
teacher. Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the State Government took a decision to re-engage
the Shiksha Mitras in the primary schools run and managed
by Board of Basic Education as they were discharging
duties prior to appointment as Assistant Teachers. The
State Government to maintain the quality of education to
the students admitted in the primary schools, is
maintaining the ratio of students and teachers. By making
amendment under Article 21-A in the Constitution of India,
the enactment has been made, which is known as The
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009 and rules have been framed thereunder. The purpose
of the said act is to provide quality of education to the
students admitted in the institutions of rural areas as well
as the city areas. Thus, the Shiksha Mitras working in
primary schools cannot be termed to be a teacher
appointed under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education
(Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. Therefore, Clause-3 of the
order dated 25.08.2018, treating Shiksha Mitras to be
teacher appointed against sanctioned post is misconceived
and contrary to the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service
Rules, 1981.
In view of the above, the petitioners have made out a
prima facie case for grant of interim order.
Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is
granted 03 weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within 02 weeks thereafter. List this petition after expiry of the aforesaid period. In the meantime, the Shiksha Mitra appointed in the Primary Schools shall not be treated to be appointed against the sanctioned post of Assistant Teachers. Order Date :- 10.9.2018 m.a.
0 Comments