High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Sudha Rai v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 25210 of 1995  RD-AH 9073 (5 May 2006)
Court No. 10
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25210 of 1995
Smt. Sudha Rai ---- Petitioner
State of U.P. & others ------ Respondents.
Hon'ble V.C.Misra, J.
Heard Sri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents at length. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in this case.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order darted 20.7.1995 (Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition) by which policy of 'Informal Education' (Anaupcharik Shiksha) introduced and floated by the State Government through out the State of Uttar Pradesh, has either been stopped in various districts or has been shifted/ transferred to other districts and due to which the petitioner's services who was working as Instructor in village Shahjanwa, district Gorakhpur came to an end.
The grievance of the petitioner is that since the said scheme has been continuing at other places and more than hundreds of illiterate persons were still found to be present in the area to whom the informal education had to be imparted, she was entitled to continue on the said post and to be paid salary equivalent to that of the Primary teacher imparting education to class 1 to 5 on the basis of equal pay for equal work as she is a trained and qualified teacher having eligibility qualification of the same and in absence of the said post of Instructor, she should have been absorbed in one of the primary schools in Sahjanwa, district Gorakhpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments stated that he does not want to press any other reliefs except relief 'f' whereby the petitioner has sought a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to absorb her in any primary schools of Tehsil Shahjanwa, district Gorakhpur. He has also submitted that the State Government had introduced a new policy dated 10.10.2005 whereby it was directed that in the matter of such Instructors appointed under the scheme of 'Informal Education' (Anaupcharik Shiksha) had to be absorbed on priority basis granting age relaxation from 35 to 40 years.
The respondents in rebuttal to the averments made in the writ petition have filed their counter affidavit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments placed reliance upon a decision of this Court dated 17.8.1999 rendered in Writ petition No. 5392 of 1994 (Zila Anaupcharik Shiksha Anudeshak Sangh Sidharthnagar and another Vs. State of U.P. & others) which was finally disposed off by this Court with a direction to the State Government to issue necessary directions to local bodies who were to impliment the new schemes of 'Shiksha Mitra' and 'Acharya' for consideration for appointment the employees working in Anaupcharik Shiksha scheme first and thereafter other candidates might be considered for appointment, in the aforesaid new schemes. In my view this decision does not apply to the facts of the present case, since at the time when this order/ direction was issued the new schemes of 'Shiksha Mitra' and 'Acharya' had not been implemented and were under the process of implementation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in Sunita Sharma and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others (JT 2001 (10) S.C. 178) wherein at para 8 their Lordships have held as thus;
"8. It appears to us that the High Court passed its order only to adjust equities in the case. If that is so, we fail to understand as to why the appellants before us should not be accommodated by the government when they possess the due qualifications, as noticed by the learned single Judge. Their cases ought to have been considered as per the directions issued by the learned single Judge in that view of the matter, we direct the respondents to consider the cases of the appellants before us and appropriate action be taken thereof within a period of two months on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the higher secondary examination subject to the condition that their appointments shall be treated as fresh appointments and they will not have any claim as to the seniority or other benefits. It is made clear that we have passed this order in the peculiar circumstances arising in these appeals and the same shall not be treated as a precedent."
Looking into the facts and circumstances of the present case and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, at length, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that in case petitioner moves a fresh representation alongwith a certified copy of this order before respondent no. 2- Director, Basic Education, U.P. within a period of one month from today, the respondent no. 2 shall decide the said representation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, taking into consideration of her past services rendered as Instructor. There shall be no order as to costs.
Kdo wp 25210/1995
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.