Selection as Shiksha Mitra does not confer automatic right to appointment post a government ban on appointments, reaffirming the role of state policy in employment matters.

1. Finding two conflicting decisions given by two division benches of this Court, a learned Single Judge, by the order dated 25th of May, 2012 has referred the following two questions of law for consideration to a larger bench. That is how the matter has come up before us on the nomination made by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Following two questions have been referred:
(A) Whether mere selection on a date prior to 02.06.2010 will confer a right upon the incumbent to claim appointment and for being sent for training as Shiksha Mitra even after the State Government has imposed a ban on such appointment on 02.06.2010 and the scheme of Shiksha Mitra itself has been dropped by the State Government.
(B) Whether the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Sonika Verma v. State of U.P. and Others (supra) or the law laid down by the Division Benches in the case of Km. Rekha Singh v. State of U.P. and Others (supra) and in the case of Pankaj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others (Supra) is the correct law.

2. The background facts, as set out in the writ petition, relevant to the above questions may be noticed in brief.

3. The present petition has been filed by five petitioners jointly by laying a claim to have been selected for the post of Shiksha Mitra in the year 2009. The grievance is that the petitioners were neither appointed as Shiksha Mitra nor were sent for training, notwithstanding the said selection. The State Government, in the meantime, by the government order dated 2nd of June, 2010 (the validity of which is not in issue), imposed ban on further appointments of Shiksha Mitra. The petitioners' claim that they are entitled for appointment as Shiksha Mitra as the aforesaid government order dated 2nd of June, 2010 is prospective in nature and does not prohibit the appointments of Shiksha Mitra who were selected anterior to the said government order. In support thereof, reliance has been placed by them on a Division Bench decision of this Court delivered in Special Appeal No. 765 of 2011 : Smt. Sheela Yadav and Others v. State of U.P. and others on 9th of May, 2011 wherein the Division Bench held that
"The selection had been made for academic session 2009-2010 and the government order which was made on 2nd of June, 2010 was made for banning future appointments. The said government order would, therefore, apply prospectively for the teachers' selection from 2nd of June, 2010 onwards and would not apply where appointments have been delayed on account of the reasons which were relatable to the inaction of the respondents."

4. Reliance has also been placed on another Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kumari Sonika Verma v. State of U.P. and Others , 2011 (1) ESC 681 wherein it was held that the respondents therein could have only refused to make selection and appointment after the date of ban i.e. 2nd of June, 2010.

5. According to the petitioners, in view of the authoritative pronouncements by the aforesaid two Division Bench decisions, the petitioners are entitled to be appointed as Shiksha Mitras, having been selected prior to the date of ban.

6. The case of the respondents is as follows: -
An advertisement with a view to select 355 Shiksha Mitras was published in Hindi Newspaper dated 19.02.2009. Due to enforcement of Model Code of Conduct, as the Lok Sabha Elections were notified, the process of selection for the time being was stopped. Subsequently, a notification dated 25th of September, 2009 was published which provided 7th and 8th October, 2009 as the dates fixed for