Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Petitioners, who are five in number, claim to have been selected for the post of Shiksha Mitra in the year 2009. However, they were neither appointed as Shiksha Mitra nor were sent for training despite the said selection. In the meantime the State Government imposed a ban on appointment of Shiksha Mitra because of the change in the policy vide Government Order dated 2.6.2010. The scheme in respect of Shiksha Mitra itself has been done away with and by means of the subsequent Government order it has been provided that no further training to Shiksha Mitras shall be provided.

2. According to the petitioners one Sheela Yadav who was also selected similarly like the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15796 of 2011 before the High Court. The writ petition was dismissed on 29.3.2011 because of the ban imposed by the State Government vide Government Order dated 2.6.2010.

3. Sheela Yadav, not being satisfied, filed Special Appeal No. 765 of 2011. The appeal has been allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court and it has been held that since selections had taken place earlier in point of time to the imposition of the ban, the same shall not apply as it was prospective in nature. The selected Shiksha Mitra was directed to be sent for training.

4. According to the petitioner against the order of the Division Bench, Special Leave to Appeal was filed before the Apex Court which has been dismissed on 9.1.2012. Petitioners have, therefore, come up before this Court for similar orders being issued.

5. On behalf of the respondents it is stated that although the Division Bench in the case of Sonika Verms v. State of U.P. and others, 2011(1) ESC 681, has held that the Government Order dated 2.6.2010 is prospective in nature, therefore, will not prohibit the appointment and training of Shiksha Mitra who had been selected earlier to the imposition of ban. Yet two other Division Benches of the Lucknow Bench of this Court in the case of Km. Rekha Singh v. State of U.P. and others (Special Appeal Defective No. 276 of 2011) and in the case of Pankaj Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (Special Appeal Defective No. 373 of 2011 dated 13.5.2011) have explained that mere selection does not confer any rights as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Government of Orissa through Secretary, Commerce and Transport Department, Bhubaneshwar v. Harprasad and others, 1998 (1) ESC 74 (SC). The Division Benches have gone on to hold that with the imposition of the ban on 2.6.2010, there can be no further direction for appointment or training being imparted to the Shiksha Mitra who were selected earlier. The relevant portion of the judgments of the said Division Benches of this Court are as follows:

“Special Appeal Defective No. 276 of 2011 :

In the instant case, even before the petitioner-appellant could be appointed and sent for training, on account of intervening circumstance, the State took a stand that they are no longer making appointment to the post of Shiksha Mitra in view of the promulgation of the Right to Education Act, 2009.

The selection only gives a right to the selected candidate to be considered. It is always open to the respondents to give satisfactory reasons for not making appointment. In the instant case, the respondents have given sufficient reason as to why the appointment could not be made. That reason cannot be faulted, namely that after promulgation of the Right to Education Act, 2009, they are no longer making any appointment to the post of Shiksha Mitra”.

“Special Appeal Defective No. 373 of 2011 :

Learned counsel for appellant also referred to a judgment rendered by the Division Bench headed by Hon’ble Chief Justice in his favour. However, in the said judgment, the appellant had been denied appointment on the ground that other similarly situated 22 candidates who have been selected with him, had been given appointment. In this case also, the Division Bench has held that Govt. Order 2.6.2010