Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65779 Reserved on 24.04.2025 Delivered on 29.04.2025 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27278 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ragini Upadhyay Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Pratap Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Rajesh Khare Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Petitioner has set up a case that while working as a Shiksha Mitra, she has passed B.T.C. Training Course in 2007 and participated for appointment of Assistant Teacher under 10% quota reserved for Shiksha Mitra in the year 2008 and later on she has also passed TET Examination 2013-14. In the year 2014 her name was published for appointment as Assistant Teacher and finally she was appointed on 31.07.2014. 2. By referring above facts, Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that since petitioner was completely qualified for appointment as Assistant Teacher, therefore, an exception could be carved out from the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Anand Kumar Yadav and others, 2018(13) SCC 560. 3. Per contra, Sri Umesh Chandra Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for Respondent-6, submitted that by way of Anand Kumar Yadav (supra) Supreme Court has barred appointment of Shiksha Mitra as Assistant Teacher without going through proper examination process having complete qualifications. 4. A similar issue was considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Vikal Pratap Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018:AHC:54927, wherein similar argument was rejected in following terms: 2 “Once the petitioners' initial engagement as Shiksha Mitra was found to be contractual, and not as per the qualification prescribed for a teacher, nor was it against any sanctioned post, all subsequent benefits secured would not place them at par with a regularly recruited Assistant Teacher. It be noticed at this stage that qualification during 2004-06 for the post of Assistant Teacher was graduate with training qualification. This qualification admittedly was not possessed by the petitioners at the time of their appointment as Shiksha Mitra. Petitioners subsequent grant of training and their TET certificate were also based upon their initial engagement as Shiksha Mitra, inasmuch as they had not secured admission to teachers training qualification and cleared TET in open category. They have not competed on the basis of their qualifications, bereft of privileges extended as Shiksha Mitra, in open competition. In view of the authoritative pronouncement on the subject by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioners cannot be permitted to continue as Assistant Teachers. The petitioners are also not right in contending that certain aspects of the matter, as have been urged before this Court, have escaped from consideration by the Full Bench or by the Apex Court. All Shiksha Mitra who have acquired qualification, or acquire such qualification for the appointment of Assistant Teachers, have been given an opportunity to appear in terms of advertisement in recruitment for the next two consecutive year, so as to make their induction consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” 5. I have considered the above submissions and judgment in Vikal Pratap Singh (supra) and is convinced that there is no reason to take a different view than what has taken by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Vikal Pratap Singh (supra). Learned counsel for petitioner has not placed any judgment which could favour him. 6. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 29.04.2025 AK Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad