RANITA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4. Despite the notice being issued to the respondent no.5 by registered post, no one has put in appearance. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the appointment of respondent no.5 on the post of Mini Aaganbari Karyakarti and the order dated 31.07.2012 passed by Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari, Kaptanganj, Kushi Nagar on the representation of the petitioner in pursuance of the direction given by this Court dated 04.07.2012 in Writ Petition No.31664 of 2012.

(2.) IN pursuance of the advertisement dated 20.07.2012 for the post of Mini Aaganbari Karyakarti for village Samera Tola, Post Malukahi, district Kushi Nagar, the petitioner, along with respondent no.5 applied. As per the advertisement, the last date for filing the application was 29.07.2010. The respondent no.5 has been selected by the Committee, consisting of five members of which Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari was Chairman, a person nominated by Tehsildar and one member of general category, one member of OBC category and one member of Scheduled Caste. The petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent no.5 and filed representation in this regard before Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari. When the representation was not decided, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.31664 of 2012, which has been disposed of vide order dated 04.07.2012 directing Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari, Kushi Nagar to decide the representation of the petitioner. Pursuant to the order of this Court impugned order has been passed by Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari, Kushi Nagar. Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari, Kushi Nagar has justified the selection of the respondent no.5. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.

(3.) SRI Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is not able to refute the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The undisputed fact is that the advertisement was made on 20.07.2010. As per advertisement, the last date for filing the application was 29.07.2010. The petitioner and the respondent no.5 both applied for the post of Mini Aaganbari Karyakarti. The copy of the application of the respondent no.5 is annexure-3 to the counter affidavit. Column 10 of the application, which relates to the domicile certificate is blank. The domicile certificate of the respondent no.5 is annexed at page 30 of the counter affidavit. The said domicile certificate has been issued by Gram Pradhan, which is dated 28.09.2010. It means that on the last date of filing of the application, the said certificate was not available. The select list is annexed as annexure-4 to the writ petition. It is signed by the five members of the committee, headed by Ms. It is dated 19.08.2010. In the column of the domicile certificate of respondent no.5 the word "YES" is mentioned. It is apparent that on 19.08.2010 though the domicile certificate of respondent no.5 was not available still the word "YES" has been mentioned and in the absence of domicile certificate, the respondent no.5 has been selected. It is apparent that selection of the respondent no.5 has been made in the absence of domicile certificate. As per the Government Order dated 16.12.2003, annexed as annexure-6 to the counter affidavit, only the resident of the same village is entitled for the selection and appointment. Therefore, the domicile certificate has significant value in the appointment of Mini Aaganbari Karyakarti and the selection should not be made in the absence of domicile certificate.