RAMA TRIPATHI (SMT.) Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for Basic Shiksha Parishad.

(2.) THE challenge to the impugned order is that Respondent No. 6 could not have been engaged as Shiksha Mitra in view of the Government Order dated 24.4.2006 which gives benefits to the petitioner. It is further contended that Respondent No. 6 was a Fair Price Shop Licensee which disqualifies him to be selected as Shiksha Mitra under the Government Order dated 10.10.2005 and other related Government Orders.

(3.) THE Government Order dated 24.4.2006 is not retrospective in the operation and the same has been upheld by not only several decisions of learned single Judge but also by a Division Bench in the case of Km. Rita Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, (2007) 2 ESC 788. The selection was admittedly pursuant to an advertisement prior to the issuance of the Government Order dated 24.4.2006, as such, the same would not apply in the instant case.