NEELAM SAGAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition lays challenge to the order dated 25th March, 2010 rejecting a representation made by the petitioner for being appointed as Shiksha Mitra in the Primary School present in Ward No. 15, Gola Bazar, Town Area Mainpuri. Consequent to the rejection of the said representation and the appointment of Smt. Zarina Bano, the instant petition came to be filed with a prayer not just to quash the order dated 25th March, 2010 but to also cancel the appointment of Smt. Zarina Bano, respondent No. 7 herein and to appoint the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra.

(2.) THE case set up in the writ petition is that prior to her marriage, the petitioner was appointed and posted as Shiksha Mitra in Primary School Block Era Katra, District Auraiya. Having been appointed to the said position in 2005, the petitioner continued in the said Institution upto the Session 2007. Subsequently, on getting married the petitioner moved to the Town Area Mainpuri and upon coming across the Advertisement dated 24.12.2008, applied for being appointed as a Shiksha Mitra in the Primary School Ward No. 15, Gola Bazar, Town Area District Mainpuri. Upon a selection process being initiated by the Village Education Committee, while the petitioner on the basis of points obtained by her was placed at Serial No. 13, Smt. Zarina Bano was placed at Serial No. 2. Aggrieved by her non -selection, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ petition No. 6371 of 2010, Neelam Sagar Vs. State of U.P. And Others challenging the selection process. This petition came to be disposed of by this Court by its judgment and order dated 8.2.2010 providing that the representation/objections preferred by the petitioner be decided by the District Magistrate concerned in accordance with law. It was based upon the aforesaid command of this Court that the District Magistrate considered the objections preferred by the petitioner and rejected the same by his order dated 25th March 2010 impugned in the present writ petition.

(3.) IT is necessary to point out here that a reading of the impugned order shows that the District Magistrate scrutinized the records of the selection in question and found that 17 applications had been made for appointment as Shiksha Mitra. He records that the Village Education Committee after examination of the credentials of all the applicants had awarded points to the various applicants and drawn up a select list. The order proceeds to record that while the petitioner on the basis of points obtained stood at Serial No. 13, the respondent No. 7 stood at Serial No. 2. The order further records that consequent to the testimonials of the person placed at Serial No. 1 of the select list not being found to be in order, the appointment was offered to the respondent No. 7 and that there was no illegality in the selection process.