PARVATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. This Special Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10-5-2007 rendered by a learned Judge of this Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner-appellant seeking appointment as a Shiksha Mitra on the ground that she had a longer experience as Instructor in non- formal education than respondent No. 5, the selected candidate.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the State Government issued a Government Order dated 10-10-2005 (Annex. 3) for appointment of Shiksha Mitras providing eligibility etc. and preference to those who had worked as Instructor/supervisor in non-formal education in case they fulfil other eligibility. THE respondent authorities issued an advertisement dated 27-10-2005 inviting applications for the said post. THE advertisement prescribed the eligibility and also some bonus marks for handicapped, widows, divorcees and relaxation of age up to five years in their cases. In case an applicant had worked as Instructor/supervisor in non-formal education scheme, he/she would be entitled for relaxation of age up to 5 years and would be given first priority in appointment provided he/she fulfilled other eligibility. THE appellant, respondent No. 5 and three other candidates applied. THE respondent No. 5 stood selected. Her appointment was challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 6190 of 2006 which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 13-2-2006 directing the District Magistrate, Azamgarh to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order. In pursuance of the said order, the District Magistrate vide order dated 30-3-2006 rejected the claim of the petitioner-appellant on the ground that respondent No. 5 had secured more quality points and had also served as instructor in the non-Formal Education Scheme. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-appellant again filed a representation before the District Magistrate, Azamgarh on 22-6-2006 (Annex. 7) making allegations against the educational authorities inasmuch as that the respondent No. 5 got appointment by paying illegal gratification, thus, her appointment was illegal. As no action was taken on her second representation, she again approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 44225 of 2006 challenging the said order of the District Magistrate dated 30-3-2006. THE Writ Petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the Government Order dated 10-10-2005 provided for "preference" in favour of candidates who had worked as Instructors under non-formal education scheme and the respondent No. 5 as well as the appellant had worked as Instructors but the respondent No. 5 was found more meritorious than the petitioner- appellant, thus, she had rightly been appointed. THE learned Single Judge rejected the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that subsequent corrigendum/amendment dated 24-4-2006 providing for first preference in favour of the candidates having longer experience as Instructor on the ground that the said order dated 24-4-2006 could not be given retrospective effect. Hence this Special Appeal.

(3.) WE have heard Shri K. C. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner-appellant, Shri B. K. Narain and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.