Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45779 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15939 of 2017 Petitioner :- Ashok Singh Respondent :- U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad Thru Secy. Allahabad And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Pandey,Ajmal Khan,Krishna Madhav Shukla,Prem Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Neeraj Chaurasiya,Prashant Kumar Singh Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, Shri P.K. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Shri Panshant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 25.03.2017, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, passed by respondent No.3 whereby the service of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher has been dispensed with. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner who was earlier working as Shiksha Mitra had been adjusted as an Assistant Teacher vide the order dated 28.05.2015, a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the petition. 4. Subsequent thereto, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs Anand Kumar Yadav in Civil Appeal No.9529 of 2017 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.32599 of 2015, decided on 25.07.2017 has cancelled the adjustment of the Shiksha Mistras on the post of Assistant Teacher. 5. Considering the aforesaid, the petitioner would obviously not be entitled for the benefit of continuing on the post of Assistant Teacher. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court only set asides the adjustment of the Shiksha Mistras on the post of Assistant Teacher meaning thereby Shiksha Mistras who were continuing on the date of adjustment as Assistant Teacher ought to continue. 7. Responding Shri Prashant Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 states that a perusal of the order impugned would indicate (a) that the petitioner who was working as Shiksha Mitra has also done a course of Shastri as a regular student; (b) that his educational documents have been found to be manipulated; and (c) that the certificate of instructor of non formal education has been found to be suspicious, which are the reasons which have prevailed on the competent authority in passing the order impugned. 8. However, considering the aforesaid subsequent developments of the very adjustment of the Assistant Teacher having been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and consequently it is only the continuance of the petitioner as an Shiksha Mitra which is now required to be considered on the basis of the grounds which have prevailed on the respondents while dispensing with the services of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher (not as a Shiksha Mitra) as such the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 to consider the continuance of the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra in the event the petitioner has a plausible explanation for the three grounds as have prevailed on the respondents while terminating the services of the petitioner. 9. The petitioner may approach respondent No.3 with a certified copy of this order duly giving his explanation with regard to aforesaid three grounds taken by the respondents, which grounds and explanation thereof shall be considered by the respondent No.3 in accordance with law and thereafter a reasoned and speaking order would be passed by the respondent No.3 after considering the explanation of the petitioner which order would be passed within a period of 8 weeks from the date the petitioner submits his explanation. Order Date :- 6.8.2025/prateek Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench