SUBHASH CHANDRA YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in the present petition is about the engagement of Shiksha Mitra for the session 2004-05. Initially the engagement of Smt. Vimala Devi (respondent No. 6) was approved by the District Basic Education Officer. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the said appointment filed a representation and ultimately approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 76326 of 2005 which was disposed of finally on 23rd December, 2005 with a direction to the District Magistrate, Jaunpur to decide the matter an pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The District Magistrate rejected the representation by a detailed order dated 31st March, 2006 which is under challenge in the present petition.

(2.) THE impugned order of the District Magistrate shows that notices had been issued to all the members of the Gram Shiksha Samiti, Gram Pradhan, the petitioner, Smt. Vimala Devi and Sri Vinod Kumar and on the basis of the records the District Magistrate found, as a fact, that in the merit list that had been prepared by the Gram Shiksha Samiti the name of Sri Vinod Kumar appears at Serial No. 1 with 62. 6% marks while the name of Smt. Vimala Devi appears at Serial No. 2 with 61. 76% marks and the name of Sri Subhash Chandra Yadav appears at Serial No. 3 with 60. 85% marks. The District Magistrate noticed that the Gram Shiksha Samiti had rejected the claim of the first two candidates and had recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment. The reason assigned for not recommending the name of Sri Vinod Kumar was that he had done his High School and Intermediate Examination from an Institution situated outside the State of Uttar Pradesh and Smt. Vimala Devi had submitted her application form beyond the time prescribed. The District Magistrate found that the rejection of the application of Vinod Kumar by the Gram Shiksha Samiti was not correct as his educational certificates were required to be taken into consideration since in terms of the advertisement the minimum qualification was Intermediate Examination from Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad or any other equivalent examination. He, therefore, found that the order of the District Basic Education Officer giving appointment to Smt. Vimala Devi by ignoring the claim of Vinod Kumar was not correct. Accordingly, he cancelled her appointment, and granted appointment to Sri Vinod Kumar as he had obtained maximum marks.

(3.) IT is the petitioner who has challenged this order and according to the petitioner Smt. Vimala Devi whose engagement had been cancelled has not filed any writ petition. The matter relates to engagement of Shiksha Mitra for the year 2004-05. It is not possible to grant any relief to the petitioner at this stage. Even otherwise, the petitioner was at Serial No. 3 as against Vinod Kumar who was at Serial No. 1. The District Magistrate found that the rejection of the claim of Vinod Kumar by the Gram Shiksha Samiti was not justified. In such circumstances, he has directed for engagement of Sri Vinod Kumar. There is no infirmity in this direction since Vinod Kumar possessed the requisite educational qualification. The petitioner is at Serial No. 3. He cannot, therefore, have any right for engagement.