Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87918 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 39651 of 2014 Petitioner :- Km. Farhat Jahan Begum Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Nath Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- D.K.Singh,Satish Chandra Yadav,V.K.Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Learned counsel for petitioner is not present. Sri Nagendra Pandey, learned counsel for respondent B.S.A. and Sri Mewa Lal Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for State are present. 2. This Court has passed following order on 22.09.2023:- "The stand taken in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner on the date of advertisement or appointment, as might be relevant, was 42 years 9 months and 21 days. This age for the petitioner is reckoned with effect from 01.07.2006. It is not clear whether 01.07.2006 was the date of advertisement or the date of the petitioner's appointment. The case of the respondents is that the maximum age to be eligible for appointment as a Shiksha Mitra is 35 years. There is a relaxation in favour of Instructors by five years. The petitioner was an Instructor and, therefore, giving her the maximum relaxation of five years, she is still above the age of forty years, after attaining which, she is ineligible for appointment. It is further submitted that a caste certificate has also been submitted in aid of her claim to a relaxation in age, but according to the Government Order applicable, relaxation can be granted on one criterion or rule, to wit, either the reservation category or the preferential category of Instructor. Relaxation in the age cannot be granted twice over. The stand, therefore, is that there can be no relaxation of ten years under two different categories of entitlement. A perusal of the counter affidavit confronts this Court with the issue, and, that is, that the Government Order, Circulars or Rules on whatever the respondents rely to say all that has been said in the Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 dated 13.02.2017 has not been annexed to the return. Let a supplementary counter affidavit be filed within a week by the District Basic Education Officer, Sambhal, annexing documents to substantiate the averments made in paragraph nos. 4, 5 and 9 of the affidavit dated 13.02.2017. Let this matter come up again on 12.10.2023 at 02:00 p.m. Let this order be communicated to the District Basic Education Officer, Sambhal through the Collector, Sambhal by the Registrar (Compliance) by Monday." 3. Learned counsel for petitioner is absent, therefore, facts mentioned in above referred order are not contradicted i.e. about the petitioner's age. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for State has referred G.O. dated 12.07.2006 and Court has perused the same and that above referred observations of this Court are further confirmed, therefore, there is no reason to allow the prayer to continue the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra since she was not qualified as well as the Court also takes note that interim order was passed as well as scheme of Shiksha Mitra has already been abandoned way back in the year 2010. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 P. Pandey Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad