NARAIN SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Sanjeet Kumar Yadav, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Raj Narain Tiwari, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 5, Shri C. K. Rai for the Basic Shiksha Parishad and the learned Standing Counsel for the remaining respondents.

(2.) THE Village Level Committee held selection proceedings for the post of Shiksha Mitra. In the select list, it was found that the petitioner had obtained 112. 1 quality point marks, where the respondent No. 5 had obtained 88. 4 quality point marks. The petitioner possessed 7 years' experience as an Instructor, whereas the respondent No. 5 possessed 11 years' experience as an Instructor. It appears that the Village Level Committee selected the petitioner as a Shiksha Mitra on the ground that the petitioner had better quality point marks than respondent No. 5. This selection was made on 3rd January, 2006 and since then the petitioner is working on the post of Shiksha Mitra.

(3.) THE respondent No. 5, being aggrieved by the selection of the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra, filed writ petition No. 66754 of 2006, which was disposed of finally with a direction to the District Magistrate to decide the controversy in accordance with law. The District Magistrate, by the impugned order dated 16th of January 2007 decided the controversy, holding that since respondent No. 5 had more experience as art Instructor, he was liable to be selected as a Shiksha Mitra, and consequently, cancelled the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision has filed the present writ petition.