Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78337 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 62955 of 2017 Petitioner :- Sushil Chandra Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Saxena (Senior Adv.),Raj Kumar Dhama Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Tiwari, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Raj Kumar Dhama, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Brijesh Narayan, learned Standing Counsel for State. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed on post of Shiksha Mitra in the year 2004 and thereafter he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year 2015. At this stage for the first time, a complaint was made that educational document submitted at the stage of appointment on post of Shiksha Mitra was forged. 3. Accordingly, a resolution dated 25.08.2017 was passed by Committee of Management and appointment on post of Shiksha Mitra was cancelled. Later, on basis of orders passed by this Court and Supreme Court, the appointment on post of Assistant Teacher was cancelled and since his appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra was cancelled, he was not allowed to join at the post of Shiksha Mitra. Relevant part of impugned order dated 26.08.2017 is reproduced hereinafter :- "अधधोहस्तताक्षररी दतारता आददेश ससं०-अननु० 1/9967-9976/2015-16 ददनतासंक 04/05/2015 कदे दतारता शरी सनुशरील चन्द्र पताण्डदेय कधो दशक्षता दमित्र पद सदे समितायधोजजित करतदे हहए पता०दवि० मिनमिऊ दविकतास खण्ड जसरताथथू मिम सहतायक अध्यतापक पद पर दनयनुदक्ति दरी गई थरी। चथूसंदक शरी सनुशरील चन्द्र पताण्डदेय ककी सहतायक अध्यतापक पद पर दनयनुदक्ति कता आधतार उनककी पताथदमिक दविदतालय चदकयता मिम दशक्षता दमित्र पद पर ककी गई सदेविता थरी एविसं गतामि दशक्षता सदमिदत मिलताक दपसंजिररी दतारता ददनतासंक 25/08/2017 कधो शरी सनुशरील चन्द्र पताण्डदेय कता पताथदमिक दविदतालय चदकयता. मिलताक दपसंजिररी जसरताथथू ककौशताम्बरी मिम दशक्षता दमित्र पद पर विरर 2004 मिम हहए चयन/अननुमिधोदन गतामि दशक्षता सदमिदत सविर सम्मिदत सदे दनरस्त कर ददयता गयता हह, जजिससदे शरी सनुशरील चन्द्र पताण्डदेय कता सहतायक अध्यतापक पद पर समितायधोजिन कता आधतार हरी समिताप्त हधो चनुकता हह। गतामि दशक्षता सदमिदत मिलताक दपसंजिररी दतारता दनरस्त करनदे कदे कतारण अब उन्हम समितायधोजजित सहतायक अध्यतापक बनतायदे रखनदे कता कधोई औदचत्य हरी नहहीं हह। अततः शरी सनुशरील चन्द्र पताण्डदेय कता पताथदमिक दविदतालय चदकयता , मिलताक दपसंजिररी जसरताथथू ककौशताम्बरी मिम दशक्षता दमित्र पद पर विरर 2004 मिम हहए चयन/अननुमिधोदन कधो गतामि दशक्षता सदमिदत मिलताक दपसंजिररी दतारता सविरसम्मिदत सदे ददनतासंक 25/08/2017 कधो दनरस्त करनदे कदे कतारण अधधोहस्तताक्षररी कतायतारलय कदे आददेश ससं० -अननु01/9967-9976/2015-16 ददनतासंक 04/05/2015 कदे दतारता दशक्षता दमित्र पद सदे समितायधोजजित करतदे हहए पता०दवि० मिनमिऊ दविकतास खण्ड जसरताथथू मिम शरी सनुशरील चन्द्र पताण्डदेय ककी सहतायक अध्यतापक पद पर ककी गई दनयनुदक्ति दनरस्त ककी जितातरी हह।" 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that an FIR was also lodged against petitioner, however, after investigation, a final report was submitted, which was accepted by learned Magistrate by order dated 15.04.2023 i.e. subsequent to filing of present writ petition. Learned counsel further submits that allegation of forgery has been specifically denied in writ petition as well as there is no alleged document with the respondents to substantiate allegation of fraud or forgery. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for State submits that there was an allegation of forgery, therefore, Committee of Management has adopted a proposal which was accepted as well as now the scheme of Shiksha Mitra has already been abandoned and no new appointments are made. 6. I have considered the above submissions and perused the record. The allegation of forgery that petitioner has submitted a forged mark sheet at stage of selection of Shiksha Mitra was not substantial even on FIR, after an investigation, final report was submitted, which was accepted recently in 2023, therefore, petitioner is now 'clear', however, the Court is constrained to give any consequential relief as the scheme of Shiksha Mitra has been abandoned many years ago and there is no fresh appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra as well as that petitioner has already cross the age of 50 years and another ground is that it was contractual appointment, therefore, no relief can be granted to petitioner. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 P. Pandey Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad