SONIKA VERMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was selected for being appointed on the post of Shiksha Mitra under the relevant Government Orders. She appears to have applied against the advertisement in respect of an urban area along with a large number of candidates for other institutions. It is the categorical case of the appellant that 22 selected candidates who had also applied against the same advertisement were given appointment and they had joined their duties on 17.4.2010.

(2.) THE candidature of the appellant was placed in the category of 'Disputed' by the Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari for no fault on her part and in the absence of any litigation in relation to the post on which she was selected. Sri M.A. Qadeer has vehemently urged that the word' 'Vivadit' has been wrongly mentioned against the candidature of the appellant and she was deprived of the appointment for extraneous considerations.

(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel Sri Pipersenia on the other hand submits that the claim of the appellant is misplaced inasmuch as after the promulgation of the Government Order, she was not entitled for any appointment and even otherwise mere selection does not give any right of appointment. He further submits that in the absence of any future direction of the State Government such a claim of the appellant cannot be accepted and the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition.