MEERA YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by judgment and order dated 06.04.2009 passed by a learned Judge in Civil Misc. WRIT Petition No. 18428 of 2009, has preferred this special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that writ petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ''appellant'), respondent no.6 - Meena Devi besides Maya Verma and Sunita Singh were candidates for engagement as Shiksha Mitra. Sunita Singh was selected for engagement, which was challenged by Maya Verma in WRIT Petition No. 19340 of 2008. A learned Judge of this Court by judgment and order dated 15.04.2008 disposed of the said writ petition directing the District Magistrate, Ballia to consider the entire matter in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the petitioner as also the respondent no.6 of the said case and all other persons interested in the said selection. As a result of the aforesaid direction, District Magistrate Ballia examined the matter and found that engagement of Sunita Singh was bad. Accordingly, respondent no.6 - Meena Devi who was next in the merit list was selected for engagement. Appellant, who did not challenge the engagement of Sunita Singh, has chosen to challenge the engagement of respondent no.6 herein. It is relevant to state that the Visheshagya Basic Education Officer (hereinafter referred to as the ''Basic Education Officer') by order dated 15.12.2008 considered the inter se claim of respondent no.6 in the light of the order of this Court dated 15.04.2008 and found that respondent no.6 had worked as Instructor and with a view to give preference to such candidates, she was selected for engagement. There was also a dispute before the Basic Education Officer as to whether the respondent no.6 - Meena Devi had earlier worked as Instructor. The Basic Education Officer considered the material on record and finding that respondent no.6 - Meena Devi had received honorarium as Instructor and the bank account bore her signature, came to the conclusion that she had worked as Informal Education Instructor earlier. Mr. Harindra Prasad, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that selection of respondent no.6 is bad, as she has never worked as Instructor and in this connection, he has referred to various reports given by several officers. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Prasad. It is not the quantity of evidence which decides an issue but the quality thereof. Here, in the bank account pertaining to grant of honorarium, signature of respondent no.6 has been certified by the bank, which shows payment of honorarium to respondent no.6 and in the face of it, it cannot be said that respondent no.6 did not work as Instructor earlier. It has further been submitted by Mr. Singh that at the time when respondent no.6 was appointed as Instructor, she was aged about 15 years and could not have been appointed as Instructor. We are of the opinion that the present proceedings are not appropriate proceedings to go into the validity of appointment of respondent no.6 - Meena Devi as Instructor. The fact of the matter is that she had worked as Instructor and, therefore, she was entitled to be engaged as Shiksha Mitra. We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.