RAM CHANDRA YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Alok Kumar Yadav counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the first and second respondents and Sri Akhilesh Kumar for the third and sixth respondents. No one has appeared on behalf of the fourth and fifth respondents, despite being sufficiently served and the matter being taken up in the revised call.

(2.) The petitioner applied for appointment as Shiksha Mitra in pursuance of an advertisement dated 29.11.2005. The Village Education Committee passed a resolution on 6 March 2006, whereby the name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment. The proposal was accepted and the petitioner was sent for training of one month commencing from 1 May 2006. The petitioner completed the training and was issued a certificate of having successfully completed the training (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). Thereafter, the petitioner joined as Shiksha Mitra in a primary school at Darideeha, District Basti since 1 July 2006. In the meantime, the fifth respondent filed a writ petition1 before this Court against the order of the third respondent (District Basic Education Officer) dated 24.5.2006. By the said order, the third respondent had recalled his earlier order dated 17.5.2006 restraining the petitioner from undergoing the training. In the writ petition, an interim order was passed on 24.7.2006 to the following effect:-

(3.) In pursuance of the said order, the District Magistrate, Basti passed an order on 2 September 2006 restraining the petitioner from performing his duties as Shiksha Mitra. In compliance of the said order, it is common ground between the parties that the petitioner was not permitted to work any further. Ultimately, the writ petition filed by the fifth respondent was dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 19.1.2011. It was held that the District Basic Education Officer was not justified in restraining the petitioner from undergoing the training and that he had rightly recalled the order dated 24.5.2006. It was further observed by this Court that the District Magistrate has not passed any order in pursuance of the direction given by this Court by order dated 27.3.2006 in Writ Petition No.16651 of 2006. The said writ petition was filed by the fifth respondent challenging the selection of the petitioner and was disposed of by this Court by order dated 27.3.2006 directing the District Magistrate, Basti to decide the application filed by the fifth respondent by a speaking and reasoned order.