SHYAM KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petitioner - appellant aggrieved by an order dated 05.09.2008 passed by learned Single Judge in WRIT Petition No.46365 of 2008, dismissing the writ petition, has preferred this 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 as also respondent No.5 besides other persons were candidates for the appointment of Shiksha Mitra in the academic session 2005-06. Respondent No.5 - Vivek Kumar Pandey was appointed as Shiksha Mitra. One Deepak Kumar Singh challenged his appointment in writ petition no. 36481 of 2007 before this Court and vide order dated 10.08.2007, the aforesaid writ application was disposed of giving liberty to said Deepak Kumar Singh to file representation before the District Magistrate and consequential direction to the latter to dispose of the representation expeditiously. In the light thereof, the District Magistrate had passed an order and taking into account that respondent no.5 was functioning as Shiksha Mitra since long and the academic session will come to an end very soon, declined to interfere with his appointment and observed that Basic Education Officer shall advertise the post of Shiksha Mitra in the session 2009-10 and then make selection, afresh. Deepak Kumar Singh did not challenge the aforesaid order, which was challenged by the appellant. Mr. K.S. Kushwaha, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent No.2. Mr. K.K. Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that when appointment of respondent No.5 was found to be wrong, the District Magistrate ought to have directed for the appellant's appointment. We are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the District Magistrate did not err in declining to interfere with the appointment of respondent No.5 - Vivek Kumar Pandey who was functioning since the session 2005-06, and the validity of his appointment was challenged only on the ground that he was under age. The academic session was come to an end very soon and taking into account all these facts, the District Magistrate directed for continuance of respondent No.5, but while doing so further directed that selection afresh be made for the session 2009-10. The aforesaid order was passed by the District Magistrate taking into consideration the welfare of the students. We are of the opinion that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the District Magistrate was absolutely just and proper and the learned Single Judge did not err in declining to interfere with the same. We do not find any merit in the Appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.