GAJ RAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case petitioner has approached this Court questioning the validity of the advertisement dated 01. 10. 2008 published for making selection and appointment on the post of Coordinator and Assistant Coordinator and further prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue on the post of B. R. C, Sidpura District Kashiram Nagar until fresh selection proceedings to be initiated. Petitioner was appointed as Block Resource Coordinator, Sidpura District Kashiram Nagar on 18. 09. 2006 and since then petitioner claims that he is working in the said capacity. On 08. 05. 2008 advertisement has been issued by Principal District Institute of Education and Training Harchandpur District Etah, for making selection and appointment on the post of Co-ordinator/assistant Co-ordinator. Petitioner submits that thereafter as new district Kashiram Nagar has been carved out said advertisement was cancelled and thereafter petitioner submits that fresh advertisement has been issued inviting application for making selection and appointment on the post Co-ordinator/assistant Co-ordinator on 01. 10. 2008. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. Sri Nitinjay Pandey, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that advertisement in question has been issued by totally incompetent authority in breach of policy formulated in this regard as such said selection cannot be permitted to continue based on the said advertisement and petitioner has right to continue on the post in question, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed. Learned Standing counsel on the other hand countended the said submission by contending that petitioner has no locus standi to question the validity of the said advertisement as maximum period for which an incumbent could function as B. R. C. is two year and said term of the petitioner has already come to end, and under the scheme of things petitioner has no right to apply qua the said advertisement, being disqualified to apply as such writ petition in question is liable to be dismissed. This Court in the case Shailendra Kumar Mishra and others Vs. State of U. P. and others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27778 of 2003) decided on 09. 04. 2004 in the light of aforementioned Government Orders has considered this aspect of the matter and therein specific view has been taken that petitioners were not held out any assurance under the Programme to be engaged as Coordinators/assistant Coordinators for indefinite period. Said judgement clearly considered the right of the Coordinators/assistant Coordinators at Block and Panchayat levels. Said judgment has been affirmed in Special Appeal No. 522 of 2004 (Net Ram Gangwar Vs. State of U. P.) reported in 2004 (3)ESC 1911. View further has been taken, that this assignment is on deputation and incumbents have been repatriated back to their substantive status of Assistant Teacher, and all the eligible candidates have been given the right to be considered under the new scheme without any preference. Apart from this in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36806 of 2007, Uttam Singh Vs. State of U. P. wherein candidates who were earlier working and had completed two years were restrained from participating in selection process, in fresh selection proceedings, questioned there exclusion from zone of consideration, same has not been accepted by this Court and following earlier judgements writ petition has been dismissed on 27. 05. 2004. In Special Appeal No. 1723 of 2004 decided on 17. 03. 2008, Division Bench of this Court has taken the view that present assignment is a sort of deputation, and under relevant government decision, this has to be for an outer side period of two years. Appellant therein completed two years were repatriated back, and said action has been affirmed. On the parameter set out, as petitioner has already functioned as B. R. C. for two years, as such petitioner cannot apply for further consideration of his candidature, as such petitioner has no locus standi to question the validity of advertisement, one he is disqualified to participate in selection proceedings and is outside the zone of consideration. Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed. .