AMITA RAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Km. Amita Rai, had earlier approached this Court by preferring writ petition No. 62979 of 2006, complaining therein that she was entitled to be appointed as Shikshamitra and recommendation made in favour of Rajesh Kumar Shukla was bad. This court on 20.11.2006 directed the District Magistrate, Mau to consider and decide the matter. Thereafter, District Magistrate proceeded to decide the matter against the petitioner. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Sri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that totally arbitrary and unreasonable view has been taken qua the claim of petitioner, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.

(3.) Sri Raj Kishore Yadav, Advocate, representing Rajesh Kumar Shukla, Sri Suresh Singh, Advocate, representing Basic Shiksha Parishad, Sri Anuj Kumar, Advocate, representing Gram Shiksha Samiti, as well as learned Standing Counsel, contended that rightful view has been taken on the basis of the material available on record, as such no interference is warranted. After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position, which emerges, is to the effect that petitioner claims to have applied for the post of Shikshamitra. Categorical finding of fact has been returned that NPRC (Coordinator) received in all 15 applications before the prescribed date i.e. 26.12.2005, and after receipt of the said applications, list was prepared, and the same were got received by the Head Mistress. The list which was prepared by the Coordinator, did not figure the name of petitioner. However, list which was prepared by Head Mistress, same included the name of petitioner. Receipt which was issued in favour of petitioner, was issued by the Head Mistress. Finding of fact has been returned that Head Mistress of the institution has tried to extend undue benefit to the petitioner. This is fact that receipt of petitioner's application had not been issued on prescribed format. Head Mistress has mentioned that she had received applications on 26.12.2005, and the said record was received late when three reminders were given. Original record has been produced, and it has been pointed out that the application of petitioner was incomplete; same even did not bear the signature of the petitioner, even date and residential certificate were not there. Based on these factual aspect, claim of petitioner has been non-suited. Once this is the factual position, which has emerged in the enquiry, which has been done on the basis of the record, then this Court will not sit in appeal and re-appreciate the said finding of fact. Consequently, writ petition lacks substance and the same is dismissed.