SEEMA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAKESH Sharma, J. This special appeal has been filed against an order of the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. It appears that an advertisement was issued for engagement of Siksha Mitra in respect of village Onawal of district Chandauli. In pursuance of the said advertisement the petitioner appellant Seema Kumari and respondent no. 6 Sunita Devi and other candidates applied, The quality point marks of the appellant were higher than those of the respondent no. 6 but the name of respondent no. 6 was proposed for engagement on the basis that the petitioner was not eligible as she was not a resident of the village Onawal. The petitioner filed objections before the committee constituted for the purpose against the proposal of the name of the 6th respondent and the said objections found favour with the committee and the name of the petitioner was thereafter proposed and the petitioner was appointed. Respondent no. 6 Sunita Devi challenged the appointment in writ petition no. 52711 of 2006 which was disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate to decide her representation. In pursuance of the order of this court dated 21. 9. 06 the District Magistrate has decided the dispute. He has given a finding that the petitioner Seema Kumari was married in a village of another district Ghazipur and not being a resident of the village Onawal was not eligible. This order was challenged by the petitioner appellant in the writ petition which has given rise to this special appeal. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the finding recorded by the District Magistrate that the petitioner is not a resident of village Onawal is a finding of fact and hence the petition was dismissed.

(2.) WE have heard Sri Yogesh Agarwal counsel for the appellant and Sri Yatindra counsel for respondent no. 6.

(3.) SRI Yogesh Agarwal submitted that all that the rule requires is that the Institution for which applications are invited should be situated in the same village Panchayat. We are afraid the interpretation put forward by the counsel for the petitioner does not appear to us to be correct. The latter portion of this rule makes the position quite clear inasmuch as it provides that in case an eligible candidate of the same village is not available a candidate from the same Nyaya Panchayat may be identified. In our view the proper interpretation of this part would be that it is only in the event of an eligible candidate of the same village being not available that recourse can be had to selecting a person from another village in the same Panchayat. Moreover it is not disputed that in the advertisement inviting applications the condition that the candidate should be the resident of the same village was specifically mentioned. The petitioner applied in pursuance of that advertisement and her case in fact is that she belongs to the same village. The first contention of the appellant's counsel in our opinion therefore does not have any merit.