RAM KRIT RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed present writ petition, questioning the validity of order dated 26. 03. 2009 passed by District Magistrate, Ghazipur, rejecting the representation of the petitioner. Brief background of the case is that on 11. 10. 2008 an advertisement was issued in daily newspaper "dainik Jagaran" for making selection and appointment on the post of Shikshamitra. Petitioner submits that he applied for consideration his candidature on the post in question; his application was finalized by the Village Education Committee, but on account of active collusion of respondents, Shashi Kiran Rai had been appointed by order dated 23. 01. 2009. Petitioner preferred writ petition No. 3769 of 2009 before this Court, and this Court asked the District Magistrate concerned to consider the grievance of the petitioner. Thereafter, the District Magistrate considered the grievance of the petitioner and rejected his claim. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) SRI A. K. Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the present case, the District Magistrate has clearly misdirected himself while passing the impugned order by ignoring this aspect of the matter that if such position is accepted, then the same would tantamount to cent per cent reservation in favour of women, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.

(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel, as well as Sri K. S. Kushwaha and Sri Anuj Kumar, Advocates, on the other hand, contended that selection and appointment on the post of Shikshamitra has been made strictly as per policy formulated, and it cannot be termed to be a case of cent per cent reservation in favour of women, as such writ petition deserves to be dismissed, specially when the selected candidate has not been impleaded and arrayed as party respondent in the present writ petition.