Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:103793 Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17066 of 2018 Petitioner :- Govind Lal Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anubhav Chandra,Sanjay Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jay Ram Pandey,Ram Babu Yadav Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit on behalf of petitioner has been filed in Court today, which is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same. 2. Heard Mr. Arpit Vaishya, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Sanjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Hare Ram, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 08.06.2018 passed by respondent no.2. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to perform his duties as Siksha Mitra at Primary School, Village Jarahi, Block Pahadi, District Mirzapur, and to pay his honorarium regularly every month.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected as a Siksha Mitra by the Gram Siksha Samiti on the basis of his quality point marks, as per the relevant Government order. He completed his training w.e.f. 10.05.2014 to 08.06.2014 and started working after submitting his joining report as Siksha Mitra w.e.f 01.07.2014. He continued to work until the passing of the impugned order. There was no complaint with regard to his misconduct or character. 5. Frivolous complaint was made by one Nand Lal Gupta, who is the real brother of the petitioner, before the respondent no.2 on 03.07.2017, on which the District Magistrate, Mirzapur directed for an inquiry into the matter, on the basis of which, proper action was also directed to be taken. 6. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Block Development Officer on 19.08.2017, calling for an explanation from the petitioner, to which he submitted a reply on 19.08.2017. Another show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by respondent no.3 on 23.05.2018, calling for an explanation from the petitioner with regard to the fact that petitioner has completed his L.L.B. Course in contravention of the Government orders, which was applicable at the time of his appointment. The petitioner submitted his reply along with evidences and supporting documents on 28.05.2018. He also appeared before respondent no.3 on the same day along with his explanation as well as other relevant documents. 7. In his explanation, he submitted that he was selected as a Siksha Mitra and was appointed w.e.f. 01.07.2004, prior to which, he had taken admission in the L.L.B. Course and after his appointment on the post of Siksha Mitra, he took permission from the Gram Pradhan/Chairman, Gram Siksha Samiti on 01.07.2004 for pursuing his L.L.B. Course and accordingly completed his course. Without considering the aforesaid explanation, order impugned has been passed directing the removal of the petitioner from the post of Siksha Mitra. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was appointed as Siksha Mitra in accordance with the relevant Government order and had worked to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned till passing of the order impugned. The order impugned has been passed without considering the fact that he had completed his L.L.B. Course after seeking permission from Gram Pradhan/Chairman, Gram Siksha Samiti. He stated that he has not concealed any fact, therefore, impugned order may be set aside. 9. Learned Standing Counsel submits that petitioner had been appointed as a Siksha Mitra, while continuing on the said post, he pursued L.L.B Course which was against the provisions of the relevant Government orders applicable for Siksha Mitra. The Government orders dated 12.11.2008 and 06.07.2010 provide guidelines and as per the guidelines, if any, Siksha Mitra pursues higher education without taking leave and takes leave without prior information, then the competent authority is empowered to select a new Siksha Mitra. Thus, the petitioner has violated the guidelines of the Government order whereas he is while continuing on the post of Siksha Mitra has pursued his L.L.B Course. 10. Relying upon paragraph-16 of the counter affidavit, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner during working on the post of Siksha Mitra gave examination of first semester on 12.04.2004, second semester on 20.06.2005, third semester on 13.07.2006, fourth semester on 10.09.2007, fifth semester on 28.08.2007 and sixth semester on 12.05.2008 and had obtained 1396 out of 2800 marks. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the aforesaid facts and no reply has been made in the rejoinder affidavit clarifying that the petitioner had completed his L.L.B Course during the period when he was continuing as Siksha Mitra. 12. In view of the above, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 3.7.2025/Rahul. Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad