MRIDULA SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The petitioner herein was selected and appointed as Shiksha Mitra and also underwent training for the said purpose. It appears that one of the aggrieved candidate Smt. Kiran Shukla, who had appeared in the selection, filed a writ petition bearing No. 5427 (S/S) of 2006 before this Court, wherein an interim order was passed on 23.06.2006 on account of which, the petitioner was restrained from working. Ultimately, the said writ petition was disposed of on 17.7.2006 with a direction to the Basic Education officer to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, who took a decision on 6.12.2006 in favour of the petitioner herein. Consequently, she again started working as Shiksha Mitra. But, this order was also put to challenge before the High Court by filing writ petition bearing No. 220 (S/S) of 2007 by the aggrieved candidate who had earlier approached this Court, wherein again an interim order was passed and the functioning of the petitioner was restrained. This writ petition was dismissed on 12.3.2012 for want of prosecution. The application for restoration of the order dated 12.3.2012 was also rejected on 9.10.2013. In spite of it, the petitioner is not being permitted to resume her duties on the ground of issuance of a Government Order dated 2.6.2010 and the Full Bench decision in the case of Km. Sandhya Singh v. State of U.P. and others , which has been followed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 9424 (S/S) of 2016. However, in that case, neither the candidates had undergone training nor were working after appointment.

(3.) The case in hand stands on a different footing. Here it is not a case of enforcement of any claim subsequent to the issuance of the Government Order dated 2.6.2010, but in this case, the petitioner was already trained and appointed way back in the year 2006 and was working as Shiksha Mitra till this Court restrained her from working in the first writ petition bearing No. 5427 (S/S) of 2006 and thereafter in the second writ petition which came to be dismissed and the proceedings have attained finality between the parties. But, for the interim orders of this Court, the petitioner would have continued to work, therefore, any prejudice which has been caused to the petitioner on account of the said interim orders passed, have to be rectified by the Court. Therefore, the case at hand deserves interference specially as those already appointed prior to 6.2.2010 and are still continuing as Shiksha Mitra.