SURESH KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel for the appellant Sri Surya Narayan Misra and Sri Praful Kumar for the State. The delay in filing the special appeal is condoned. The appellant was though impleaded as opposite party no. 5 in the writ petition but his name was deleted under the orders of the learned Single Judge. The appellant's contention is that the writ petition was allowed without giving any opportunity to the appellant though he was the complainant, who has raised a grievance against the selection/appointment of the respondent as Shiksha Mitra, whose claim was that since he had worked as Instructor under Non Formal Education Scheme, he was entitled to have preference and the respondent could not have been selected or appointed in his presence. It appears that this compliant was looked into by various authorities, who submitted their report and in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3376 (SS) of 2006 decided on 21.4.06, the District Magistrate decided the representation and considered the eligibility of the appellant as well as that of the respondent. The District Magistrate vide his order dated 1.7.08 after taking into consideration the various reports of different authorities including that of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, found that there was no material on record to indicate that the respondent was appointed as Instructor under Non Formal Education Scheme and, therefore, he was not found eligible for appointment. This order dated 1.7.08 has not been challenged by the appellant and in the meantime, since despite the aforesaid order, the respondent was not being given appointment, he filed the present writ petition claiming appointment. The learned Single has allowed the writ petition with the following observations: "From perusal of the order impugned, it is obvious that the petitioner was selected as Shiksha Mitra and he had been sent for training, but on the complaint made by Mr. Pandey, he was not allowed to complete the training. Now complaint of Mr. Pandey has been found baseless. Under the circumstances, I am also of the view that the petitioner is entitled to continue for training as well as posting as Shiksha Mitra. Accordingly, I hereby quash the order impugned dated 1.7.08 passed by the opposite party no. 2 with the direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to complete the training and post him as Shiksha Mitra in the primary school for which he has been selected. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is allowed. In view of the fact that the District Magistrate has recorded a finding with respect to eligibility of both the persons and the order dated 1.7.08 not being challenged by the appellant, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be interfered with by us. The special appeal has no force and is hereby dismissed.