By the Court.—The present Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 5.5.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11576 of 2003.

2. It appears that the aforementioned Civil Misc. Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner-appellant for quashing the order dated 5.3.2003 whereby the select list in regard to the post of Shiksha Mitra was cancelled by the Visheshagya Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Maharajganj, district Maharajganj with a further prayer for directing the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner-appellant as Shiksha Mitra and to pay honorarium to the petitioner-appellant month by month till the end of session.

3. By the order dated 13th March, 2003 notice was directed to be issued on the Writ Petition and the operation of the said order dated 5.3.2003 was stayed till 30th May, 2003.

4. On 5th May, 2003 the Writ Petition was heard by the learned Single Judge and was dismissed as he was of the view that the post of Shiksha Mitra is not a civil post and therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, he directed that if any amount with regard to honorarium was due the same would be paid by the respondent No. 1 in the Writ Petition within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the respondents in the Writ Petition.

5. The petitioner-appellant has thereafter filed the present special appeal challenging the said order dated 5th May, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge.

6. We have heard, Sri Satyendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

7. The only question which is to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant in regard to cancellation of the select list for the post of Shiksha Mitra was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. Sri Satyendra Pandey, submits that such Writ Petition would be maintainable in view of a Division Bench of this Court in Sadhana Devi v. State of U.P. and others, 2009(2) ADJ 494 (DB) : 2009(2) ESC 1120 (All)(DB).

9. We have considered the submission made by Sri Satyendra Pandey and we are inclined to accept the same. In the aforesaid case cited, the appellant was appointed as Shiksha Mitra at Prathamic Vidyalaya, Hata Bujurg, Uruwa Bazar, Gorakhpur. On a complaint made against the appellant an inquiry was conducted by the Basic Education Officer. On the inquiry, it was found that the mark sheet of the appellant was forged. Consequently, the appointment of the appellant was cancelled by the order dated 27th July, 2008. Thereupon the appellant filed a Writ Petition before this Court on the ground that the said order dated 27th July, 2008 had been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the Writ Petition as not maintainable. Thereupon the appellant filed a Special Appeal. The Division Bench of this Court allowed the Special Appeal, set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and held that the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable as the same was directed against the action of Government Officer, who was a public authority. Relevant paragraph Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the judgment of U.P.L.B.E.C. of the Division Bench are reproduced below :

(5) “He has also invited the attention of the Court towards the decision of this Court in Urmila Chaurasia v. State of U.P. and others, 2004 (4) ESC 2548 and Smt. Nirmala Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (2) ESC 1288 (All), wherein learned Single Judge after tracing out the constitutional/statutory origin of the Government Orders pursuant thereto Shiksha Mitra are appointed and considering Mala Devi’s case has held that the writ petitions are maintainable where the i