KUNJ BIHARI LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that appointment of re spondent No. 4 as Shiksha Mitra in 2003 is being renewed every year and fresh selection is not being held.

(2.) INITIALLY my view was that the import of Government order dated 1.7.2001 is that engagement of Shiksha Mitra is not job oriented and it also par takes the nature of largess and by virtue of para 5 of the said G.O. normally the period of engagement is to be one year, and only, in exceptional circumstances it can be extended only for one more academic session. I was also of the opinion that renewal was against the very spirit of the said G.O. as under the said G.O. fresh selection every year was a general rule and renewal was an exception and that also only for one more academic session after initial engagement. If the largess is distributed to more persons it is better than confining it to fewer persons. Renewal of any kind by the Government is against Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution vide Full Bench authority of Ram Kumar v. State, 2005 (99) RD 823 (dealing with fisheries rights).

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, writ petition is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.