MANJU SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri K.M. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4 and Sri B.G. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 8. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter- alia, praying for quashing the select list dated 15.12.2008 (annexure 12 to writ petition) in so far as, it relates to the respondent no. 7, and further, for directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to restore the selection of the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra in Village Panchayat Boreki, Post Office Jalalabad, Pargana and Tehsil Najibabad, District Bijnor. The case of the petitioner is that she was selected as Shiksha Mitra of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat, Boreki by the District Level Committee, Bijnor by the select list on 25.11.2008 (annexure 10 to the writ petition), pursuant to the panel submitted by Gram Shiksha Samiti, Gram Panchayat Boreki (annexure 9 to the writ petition). However, subsequently, on a complaint made by the respondent no. 7, a fresh select list dated 15.12.2008 (annexure 12 to the writ petition) was issued wherein the name of the petitioner was omitted, while the name of the respondent no. 7 was shown as having been selected as Shiksha Mitra in respect of Village Panchayat Boreki. In view of the aforesaid action taken against the petitioner, the petitioner made a representation on 7.01.09 (annexure 13 to the writ petition). As nothing was done on the said representation, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned above. Sri K.M. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said representation of the petitioner has not so far been decided by the District Magistrate, Bijnor (respondent no. 2) In view of the above, I am of the view that it will be in the interest of justice that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2 (District Magistrate, Bijnor) to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 7.01.2009, if the same has not already been decided. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondent no. 2 (District Magistrate, Bijnor) to pass the appropriate orders on the said representation of the petitioner dated 7.1.2009 (annexure 13 to the writ petition) expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the respondent no. 2 along with a copy of the aforesaid representation. Before deciding the matter the respondent no. 2 will give an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties including the petitioner and the respondent no. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the case of the petitioner. If the aforesaid representation of the petitioner has already been decided by the respondent no. 2, he will not be under any obligation to pass a fresh order on the said representation. However, a copy of the order passed by the respondent no. 2 on the representation of the petitioner, will be provided to the petitioner. A copy of this order shall be provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within three days.