शिक्षा मित्रों की रिट खारिज, याचिका थी कि नियमित शिक्षक के
बराबर वेतनमान दिया जाए ,हाईकोर्ट ने कहा कि सुप्रीम कोर्ट पहले ही फैसला
दे चुकी है , फिक्स्ड 10 हज़ार रुपये मानदेय मानने की शर्तों के अधीन नोकरी
कर रहे हो और उसी को चैलेंज, याचिका खारिज
In view of the above, the petitioners were provided
appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra on contractual basis on the
fixed honorarium of Rs. 10,000/-. Thus, challenge of the same Government
Order, whereby they were provided engagement on the post of Shiksha
Mitra, is not permissible in law.
Accordingly, the writ petition being misconceived is hereby dismissed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 23
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23683 of 2018
Petitioner :- Bhola Prasad Shukla And Ors.
Respondent :- U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Human Resources Devp. And Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar Misra,Neelesh Kumar,Pawan Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.M. Tripathi,A.S.G.,Sudhanshu Chauhan
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no. 1 which may be taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
Learned Chief Standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 5.
Sri Sudhanshu Chauhan, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 2.
Sri A.M. Tripathi, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 4.
The petitioners have challenged the vires of the Government Order dated 20.9.2017 whereby the State Government resolved to reinstate the Shiksha Mitra in the entire State in Primary Schools run and managed by the Board of Basic Education. The Shiksha Mitra appointed under the aforesaid Government Order are entitled for the payment of honorarium of Rs. 10,000/- per month.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are Shiksha Mitra having graduation degree with training qualification, therefore,� they are entitled to get salary of Rs. 38878/- and to continue for the period of 12 months as per the Minutes of Meeting approved on 22nd April, 2016 by the respondents. His next submission is that in illegal and arbitrary manner, the Shiksha Mitra, who are having qualification of Intermediate have also been given same pay scale as has been provided to the petitioners which are arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. His next submission is that the meeting dated 22nd April, 2016 is the meeting of the Central Government, which provided aid under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, wherein Shiksha Mitra are appointed by the State of U.P. in the primary schools, up to the level of 65%, therefore, minutes of meeting are binding upon the State Government.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the writ petition is misconceived writ petition. The Government Order dated 20.9.2017 was issued in compliance of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and other Vs. Anand Kumar Yadav passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 32599 of 2015 decided on 25.7.2017 thus does not require interference by this Court. His next submission is that the petitioners are granted appointment under the aforesaid Government Order, therefore, the petitioners have no right to challenge the Government Order dated 20.9.2017 in entirety. The salary which are being demanded by the petitioners are not admissible to the Shiksha Mitra appointed under the scheme of the Government on contractual basis on a fixed honorarium, after declaration of the absorption of Shisha Mitra to be illegal being de-hors the rules. Next submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the claim of the petitioners for the payment of honorarium of Rs. 38878/- is not permissible in law. Thus, the writ petition being misconceived is liable to be dismissed.
After having heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties I perused the record of the writ petition.
The petitioners are Shiksha Mitra working in the different primary schools of District Basti. The petitioners without examining the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 32599 of 2015 (State of U.P. and other Vs. Anand Kumar Yadav) decided on 25.7.2017 have proceeded to challenge the Government Order dated 20.9.2018. The Government Order dated 20.9.2017 has been issued in compliance of the judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court giving appointment to them on sympathetic ground by the State Government. Paragraph 25 and 26 of the judgement dated 25.7.2017 are quoted herein below :-
"25. On the one hand, we have the claim of 1.78 Lakhs persons to be regularized in violation of law, on the other hand is the duty to uphold the rule of law and also to have regard to the right of children in the age of 6 to 14 years to receive quality education from duly qualified teachers. Thus, even if for a stop gap arrangement teaching may be by unqualified teachers, qualified teachers have to be ultimately appointed. It may be permissible to give some weightage to the experience of Shiksha Mitras or some age relaxation may be possible, mandatory qualifications cannot be dispensed with. Regularization of Shiksha Mitras as teachers was not permissible. In view of this legal position, our answers are obvious. We do not find any error in the view taken by the High Court.
26. Question now is whether in absence of any right in favour of Shiksha Mitras, they are entitled to any other relief or preference. In the peculiar fact situation, they ought to be given opportunity to be considered for recruitment if they have acquired or they now acquire the requisite qualification in terms of advertisements for recruitment for next two consecutive recruitments. They may also be given suitable age relaxation and some weightage for their experience as may be decided by the concerned authority. Till they avail of this opportunity, the State is at liberty to continue them as Shiksha Mitras on same terms on which they were working prior to their absorption, if the State so decides."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement referred herein above considered each and every aspect of the matter and has held that the absorption of the Shiksha Mitra in the State of Uttar Pradesh is in violation of law. The provisions contained under the right to free and compulsory education of the children in the age of 6 to 14 years to receive the quality of education and appointment of qualified teachers is to be take care of by the State machinery. Thus, even if for a staff gap arrangement teaching is imparted by unqualified teachers, the purpose of Right To Free And Compulsory Education Act, 2009 amended under Article 29(A) of the Constitution of India shall not be served.�
Thereafter, on the facts and circumstances direction was issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to give opportunity for consideration of recruitment, if they have acquired or they now acquire the requisite qualification or in terms of advertisement for recruitment some age relaxation and waightage for their experience be provided for next two consecutive recruitment.
In view of the above, the petitioners were provided appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra on contractual basis on the fixed honorarium of Rs. 10,000/-. Thus, challenge of the same Government Order, whereby they were provided engagement on the post of Shiksha Mitra, is not permissible in law.
Accordingly, the writ petition being misconceived is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.8.2018
Manoj
Accordingly, the writ petition being misconceived is hereby dismissed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 23
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 23683 of 2018
Petitioner :- Bhola Prasad Shukla And Ors.
Respondent :- U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Human Resources Devp. And Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar Misra,Neelesh Kumar,Pawan Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.M. Tripathi,A.S.G.,Sudhanshu Chauhan
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no. 1 which may be taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
Learned Chief Standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 5.
Sri Sudhanshu Chauhan, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 2.
Sri A.M. Tripathi, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 4.
The petitioners have challenged the vires of the Government Order dated 20.9.2017 whereby the State Government resolved to reinstate the Shiksha Mitra in the entire State in Primary Schools run and managed by the Board of Basic Education. The Shiksha Mitra appointed under the aforesaid Government Order are entitled for the payment of honorarium of Rs. 10,000/- per month.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are Shiksha Mitra having graduation degree with training qualification, therefore,� they are entitled to get salary of Rs. 38878/- and to continue for the period of 12 months as per the Minutes of Meeting approved on 22nd April, 2016 by the respondents. His next submission is that in illegal and arbitrary manner, the Shiksha Mitra, who are having qualification of Intermediate have also been given same pay scale as has been provided to the petitioners which are arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. His next submission is that the meeting dated 22nd April, 2016 is the meeting of the Central Government, which provided aid under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, wherein Shiksha Mitra are appointed by the State of U.P. in the primary schools, up to the level of 65%, therefore, minutes of meeting are binding upon the State Government.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the writ petition is misconceived writ petition. The Government Order dated 20.9.2017 was issued in compliance of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and other Vs. Anand Kumar Yadav passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 32599 of 2015 decided on 25.7.2017 thus does not require interference by this Court. His next submission is that the petitioners are granted appointment under the aforesaid Government Order, therefore, the petitioners have no right to challenge the Government Order dated 20.9.2017 in entirety. The salary which are being demanded by the petitioners are not admissible to the Shiksha Mitra appointed under the scheme of the Government on contractual basis on a fixed honorarium, after declaration of the absorption of Shisha Mitra to be illegal being de-hors the rules. Next submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the claim of the petitioners for the payment of honorarium of Rs. 38878/- is not permissible in law. Thus, the writ petition being misconceived is liable to be dismissed.
After having heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties I perused the record of the writ petition.
The petitioners are Shiksha Mitra working in the different primary schools of District Basti. The petitioners without examining the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 32599 of 2015 (State of U.P. and other Vs. Anand Kumar Yadav) decided on 25.7.2017 have proceeded to challenge the Government Order dated 20.9.2018. The Government Order dated 20.9.2017 has been issued in compliance of the judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court giving appointment to them on sympathetic ground by the State Government. Paragraph 25 and 26 of the judgement dated 25.7.2017 are quoted herein below :-
"25. On the one hand, we have the claim of 1.78 Lakhs persons to be regularized in violation of law, on the other hand is the duty to uphold the rule of law and also to have regard to the right of children in the age of 6 to 14 years to receive quality education from duly qualified teachers. Thus, even if for a stop gap arrangement teaching may be by unqualified teachers, qualified teachers have to be ultimately appointed. It may be permissible to give some weightage to the experience of Shiksha Mitras or some age relaxation may be possible, mandatory qualifications cannot be dispensed with. Regularization of Shiksha Mitras as teachers was not permissible. In view of this legal position, our answers are obvious. We do not find any error in the view taken by the High Court.
26. Question now is whether in absence of any right in favour of Shiksha Mitras, they are entitled to any other relief or preference. In the peculiar fact situation, they ought to be given opportunity to be considered for recruitment if they have acquired or they now acquire the requisite qualification in terms of advertisements for recruitment for next two consecutive recruitments. They may also be given suitable age relaxation and some weightage for their experience as may be decided by the concerned authority. Till they avail of this opportunity, the State is at liberty to continue them as Shiksha Mitras on same terms on which they were working prior to their absorption, if the State so decides."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement referred herein above considered each and every aspect of the matter and has held that the absorption of the Shiksha Mitra in the State of Uttar Pradesh is in violation of law. The provisions contained under the right to free and compulsory education of the children in the age of 6 to 14 years to receive the quality of education and appointment of qualified teachers is to be take care of by the State machinery. Thus, even if for a staff gap arrangement teaching is imparted by unqualified teachers, the purpose of Right To Free And Compulsory Education Act, 2009 amended under Article 29(A) of the Constitution of India shall not be served.�
Thereafter, on the facts and circumstances direction was issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to give opportunity for consideration of recruitment, if they have acquired or they now acquire the requisite qualification or in terms of advertisement for recruitment some age relaxation and waightage for their experience be provided for next two consecutive recruitment.
In view of the above, the petitioners were provided appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra on contractual basis on the fixed honorarium of Rs. 10,000/-. Thus, challenge of the same Government Order, whereby they were provided engagement on the post of Shiksha Mitra, is not permissible in law.
Accordingly, the writ petition being misconceived is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.8.2018
Manoj
