UPENDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Neeraj Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Ari Amarjit Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.5. This petition was entertained on 28.9.07. Notices were issued to contesting parties to file reply/counter affidavit. The matter has come up for admission today. It emerges from the record that admittedly selection for engagement of Shiksha Mitra in Primary Pathshala, Dhikna, district Baghpat was held in the year 2004. The Gram Shiksha Samiti prepared a select list on 4.9.04 after following requisite procedure. Sri Kalu Ram, respondent No.5 and Mamta Devi etc. were engaged in the same year. Kalu Ram, respondent No.5 has continued on the basis of renewal of engagement during the academic session 2004-05, 05-06 and 06-07. When the time of his renewal for the academic session 2007-08 approached, hindrance was caused by several persons and Gram Shiksha Samiti etc. The Gram Shiksha Samiti had not recommended the name of the petitioner for renewal. Kalu had approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 27303 of 2007 which was disposed of on 15.6.07 directing the District Magistrate to deal with the representation and dispose of the same within three weeks. Accordingly, District Magistrate, Baghpat has disposed of the representation on 3.9.07 which has been assailed in this writ petition. The District Magistrate after going through the material on record has passed a detailed, reasoned and speaking order running in six pages concluding that the Kalu Ram's engagement should have been renewed and the Gram Pradhan was unnecessarily causing hindrance in renewal of the engagement. The petitioner claims himself to be a candidate when the advertisememt was inserted in the local newspaper and the candidates desirous of seeking appointment has responded. Admittedly the selection took place and select list was prepared. The details of such list as per merit have been given in para 2 of the writ petition. The petitioner Upendra was a candidate who was unsuccessful and who could not be engaged as Shiksha Mitra in the year 2004 has now approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on 26.9.07 to challenge the order of renewal of respondent No. 5 Kalu Ram. The events which took place before 4.9.04 are being challenged. It is an attempt to find out skeleton from the graveyard. In fact the foundation of renewal of Kalu had already been laid in the year 2004 when he was selected and engaged as Shiksha Mitra. Moreover, he had continued for three consecutive years, that is, for 2004-05, 05-06 and 2006-07. Now as far as renewal of Kalu Ram was concerned, it was the matter between Shiksha Samiti, District Magistrate and Kalu Ram. No third person or stranger could intervene in the matter as the petitioner's right to challenge the engagement of Kalu Ram had extinguished in the year 2004 when Sri Kalu Ram was allowed to assume charge as Shiksha Mitra and by his continuance as Shiksha Mitra for three more years. He has no locus standi to maintain this writ petition. Rather, precious time of the Court has been wasted. The District Magistrate has passed a detail, reasoned and speaking order. The order is well considered order setting the controversy at rest. There were disputed questions of fact which could have been dealt with and taken care of by the executive authority and the same has been done by the District Magistrate in furtherance of the judgment and order passed by this Court on 15.6.2007. Accordingly, no interference is required. The writ petition is dismissed.