NEELU DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -We have heard Sri Man Bahadur Singh learned counsel for the appellant, learned standing counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4, Sri Anuj Kumar for respondent No. 5, Sri Jagdish Pathak learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 and Sri Tej Bhan Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 7.

(2.) A single post of Shiksha Mitra of Prathamic Vidhyalaya Sikandarpur Aaima, block Mahrajganj, Tehsil Sagari district Azamgarh was advertised on 24th December 2006. The last date of submitting the application form complete in all respect was 24.1.2007. Three candidates including the appellant Smt. Neelu Devi and the respondent No. 6 Smt. Saroj Yadav applied within time. Smt. Neelu Devi submitted her application form in the prescribed proforma on 22.1.2007 but without annexing the copy of the domicile certificate. On her application seeking time for submitting such certificate the Gram Pradhan allowed her time uptil 30.1.2007 to submit the domicile certificate. She obtained domicile certificate on 27.1.2007 certifying that she is resident of the village concerned and the said certificate was presented and taken on record on the same day. In the selection, she secured higher marks and was selected. Her name was recommended for appointment as Shiksha Mitra by the Gram Shiksha Samiti and the same was approved by the District Level Committee also. Aggrieved by her selection, Smt. Saroj Yadav filed Writ Petition No. 11624 of 2008 which was disposed of with the direction to the District Magistrate to consider the grievance of Smt. Saroj Yadav by a speaking order. In pursuance thereof after hearing the parties concerned and calling for the report of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, the District Magistrate vide order dated 6.6.2008 allowed the representation of Smt. Saroj Yadav and held that the application form of Smt. Neelu Devi was incomplete as it was not accompanied by the domicile certificate and as such her candidature was not valid.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant next submitted that under the scheme there is no specific provision requiring submission of the domicile certificate with the application form and therefore the rejection of the candidature of the appellant Smt. Neelu Devi is wholly illegal. A perusal of the scheme for Shiksha Mitra reveals that it is not a scheme for employment but a scheme to provide education to the illiterate class of villagers. The scheme envisages for giving preference for appointments of Shiksha Mitra to the persons who are resident of the village concerned. Therefore, to verify the place of residence of the candidate, a domicile certificate issued by the competent authority certifying the candidate's place of residence appears to be necessary. Therefore, even if in the amended scheme there is no specific reference that the candidate has to submit a domicile certificate along with the application form, nonetheless in view of the object of the scheme and the language of the advertisement the submission of all certificates including domicile certificate is mandatory.