AMIT KUMAR BHARDWAJ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER-appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 2nd April, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 17923 of 2009 dismissing the writ petition, has preferred this Appeal under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules. PETITIONER-appellant as also respondent No. 6 Sri Shree Niwas besides Abhishek Kumar were the candidates for appointment as Shiksha Mitra for the session 2005-06. Aforesaid Abhishek Kumar was selected and appointed and, appellant aggrieved by the same, filed Writ Petition No. 4347 of 2009 before this Court. This Court by order dated 30th January, 2009 disposed of the writ application with direction to the District Magistrate to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner against the appointment of Abhishek Kumar. District Magistrate found that Abhishek Kumar is not the resident of the village and hence not fit to be appointed as Shiksha Mitra. Accordingly, his appointment was set aside and respondent No. 6 who was at Serial No. 2 of the merit list was appointed. Writ petitioner-appellant assailed the aforesaid order which has given rise to the impugned order. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that respondent No. 6 has been given the benefit of having working as Anudeshak and this is in violation of the Government Order dated 6th May, 2008. The selection of Shiksha Mitra was for the session 2005-06 and as the aforesaid Government Order dated 6th May, 2008 was issued later on, the learned Single Judge observed that the same would not be governing the field. In this connection, the learned Single Judge observed as follows:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent no. 6 has been given the benefit of Anudeshak in violation of the Government order dated 6th May, 2008 where only bonus points could be awarded and he could not have been given first preference. In the opinion of the Court, the selection related to a period prior to 2008 and, therefore, the aforesaid Government order would not come into play and thus, on the basis of the earlier Government order, the appointment of respondent no. 6 was fully justified." Mr. Akash Mishra appearing on behalf of the appellant reiterated the same submission. We are of the opinion that the Government Order dated 6th May, 2008 shall not govern the field as the appointment is for the session 2005-06. Hence the learned Single Judge did not commit any error while dismissing the writ petition. We do not find any merit in the appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed.