The Allahabad High Court has directed the Basic Education Officer, Siddharth Nagar, to take a decision within two months as per the rules considering the service of the Assistant Teacher and Shiksha Mitra in the determination of seniority before the appointment of Assistant Teacher of the petitioner.
A Single Bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Ram Raj Chaudhary and 47 Others.
It is contended by Lavlesh Kumar Shukla, counsel for the petitioners that petitioners were initially appointed as Shiksha Mitra on different dates in the year 2005 and consequently, the petitioners absorbed as Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools in the year 2015.
However, the absorptions of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers were cancelled by the Apex Court under its order dated 25.7.2017 and the petitioners pursuant to the order of the Apex Court were reverted back to the post of Shiksha Mitra.
It is contended that the State Government thereafter proceeded to sanction the post of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad and the petitioners were selected and appointed as Assistant Teachers and have been working as Assistant Teachers in various primary schools/composite schools of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Their grievance is that after being appointed as Assistant Teachers, they have been placed at the bottom of the list of Assistant Teachers and the past services as Assistant Teachers have not been taken into consideration.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that raising the said grievance, the petitioners have already approached the respondent No 3 by moving representation on 16.2.2023, which is still pending consideration.
He further submitted that the purpose of filing this writ petition would be served if directions are issued to the respondent No 3, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Siddharth Nagar to pass appropriate orders on the pending representation of the petitioners.
Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that they have no objection to the aforesaid proposition and submits that the claim of the petitioner shall be decided in accordance with law.
The Court opined that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending and the issue raised in the writ petition can be better addressed by respondent No 3 at the first instance.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition directing the respondent No 3, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Siddharth Nagar, seized with the representation of the petitioners dated 16.2.2023 to pass appropriate orders thereon, after considering all aspects of the matter, strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of two months from the date of service of a certified copy of the order of the Court.