REEMA YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 4.8.2011 passed by the District Magistrate Kannauj as well as the order of the District Basic Education Officer, Kannauj also dated 4.8.2011 Annexure-16 to the writ petition with a further prayer to the respondent not to interfere with the functioning of the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra in the Primary School, Rahmatpur, District-Kannauj. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued by the District Basic Education Officer inviting applications for appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra. The petitioner at the time of the advertisement published on 16.12.2003 had done her B.A. and was pursuing her studies in M.A. She had also passed the Intermediate Examination and therefore she applied for the post of Shiksha Mitra on 24.1.2004. The Village Education Committee in its meeting held on 17.2.2004 considered the candidature of four candidates and on a finding that the petitioner had obtained the highest marks recommended her name for appointment as Shiksha Mitra. Thereafter the papers were forwarded to the District Level Committee which approved the selection and information was sent to the District Basic Education Officer vide letter dated 5.6.2004 and in pursuance thereof a direction was issued to the petitioner to complete her training at the District Training Institute, Chibbramau District-Kannauj from 7.6.2004 to 6.7.2004. On successful completion of her training the petitioner was appointed by the Assistant Basic Education Officer, Urmada and the petitioner thereafter joined the Primary School, Rahmatpur, District-Kannauj on 26.7.2004.

(2.) The case of the petitioner further is that thereafter a complaint was filed by one Sri Apresh Singh, Advocate alleged to be the brother-in-law of the earlier Gram Pradhan Smt. Sangeeta Devi by enclosing forged and fabricated resolution of the Village Education Committee of the year 2004. It is also stated that in the column of signature of Pradhan signature of one Ajmer Singh was made in spite of the fact that the Pradhan at the relevant point of time of passing of resolution was one Smt. Vindeshwari Devi, wife of Ajmer Singh, the signature of one Udai Bhan Singh as Secretary was also made fraudulently. On the complaint of Sri Apresh Singh, the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur held an enquiry and in the enquiry it was observed that the petitioner had fraudulently shown her marks of the High School to be 359 and marks of Intermediate to be 294 and selected on these marks whereas in fact her actual High School marks were 331 and Intermediate marks were 264. The report of the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur is stated to be based upon an ex parte enquiry and on the basis of the said report the District Magistrate is stated to have passed the impugned order dated 4.8.2011 which is also alleged to be an ex parte order without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner acquired knowledge of the order of the District Magistrate through the impugned communicating letter of the District Basic Education Officer also dated 4.8.2011.

(3.) I have heard Sri Irshad Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Shahi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, Sri D.D. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.