Kusum Singh vs State of U.P.and Others

N.K. Mehrotra, J.—This is a writ petition for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the State Government to take policy decision and issue necessary guidelines regarding the consideration of candidature of employees of ''Anaupcharik Shiksha Scheme for appointment of ''Shiksha Mitra'' under Sarva Shiksha Abiyan in the light of the judgment and order dated 17.8.1999 passed by this Hon''ble Court and to consider the petitioner''s candidature for appointment on the post of ''Shiksha Mitra'' on priority basis under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan for the year 200304 pursuant to the notification dated 14.12.2003 and 9.1.2004 and for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash notification dated 14.12.2003 and 9.1.2004 issued by the office of the Visheshagya, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sultanpur to the extent that it does not contain the provision for consideration of candidature of employees of ''Anaupcharik Shiksha Scheme'' on the post of ''Shiksha Mitra'' and for direction to the respondents not to make any appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra before taking any policy decision for absorption of the employees of the Anaupcharik Shiksha.

The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Anupdheshak in Anaupcharik Shiksha Scheme from the year 1996 till abolition of the said scheme. She has referred the judgment dated 17.8.1999 passed by this Hon''ble Court in writ petition No.5352 (S/S) of 2000 requiring consideration of candidature of employees of Anaupcharik Shiksha Scheme on the post of Shiksha Mitra on priority basis and the judgment in writ petition No.5526 (S/S) of 2000 in which an interim order dated 12.10.2000 was passed directing the opposite parties to give the benefit of the earlier judgment of this court to the petitioners as an interim measure.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner has no right to challenge the notification dated 14.12.2003 and 9.1.2004 on the ground that no priority is being given to the petitioner who was appointed in the year 1996 in Anaupcharik Shiksha Scheme. Further I am of the view that the petitioner cannot claim any priority on the post of Shiksha Mitra unless Government makes a policy in this regard and the court cannot issue direction to the Government to lay down a policy in a particular manner to make such law which may favour the petitioner.

Therefore, the writ petition cannot be admitted for such directions. At the same time, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the earlier judgment of this Court in which the direction has been given for consideration for the absorption of the employees of Anaupcharik Shiksha in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan by interim orders and final decisions. Therefore, with the consent of the parties, this writ petition can be disposed of at the admission stage with the direction to the opposite parties to take decision on the representation dated 25.12.2003 of the petitioner as contained in Annexure9 in the light of the judgment in writ petitions No.5232 (S/S) of 2000, 5526 (S/S) of 2000 and 5352 (S/S) of 1994, expeditiously.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction to the Secretary, Basic Education to take decision on the representation of the petitioner as contained in Annexure9 dated 25.12.2003 after keeping in view the judgment of this Court in writ petition No.5392 (S/S) of 1994: Zila Anaupcharik Shiksha Anudeshak Sangh v. State of U.P. and others, Annexure4, writ petition No.5253 (S/S) of 2000: Jagdish Prasad v. State of UP. Annexure5 and writ petition No.5526 (S/S) of 2000: Brij Nath Mishra and another v. State of U.P. and others, Annexure6, expeditiously within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced.

(Ordered accordingly)