Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Naresh Kumar Baghel v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 62124 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 20333 (30 November 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 36

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 62124 of 2006

Naresh Kumar Baghel


State of U.P. & Ors.

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.

In the primary school Jharpura, two posts were sanctioned for the appointment of Shiksha Mitra. The Gram Shiksha Samiti passed a resolution inviting applications for appointment of Shiksha Mitra on the said post. The advertisement was duly made and the petitioner applied along with other candidates. The petitioner was selected for appointment as Shiksha Mitra in the OBC category (Male) and the petitioner was allowed joining. One Sri Rakesh Kumar also claimed appointment as  Shiksha Mitra in the said school but was not selected. Therefore, he filed writ petition No. 17480 of 2006 claiming direction for his appointment. The said writ petition was disposed of by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 30.3.2006 with the direction to the District Magistrate to consider the representation of the said Rakesh Kumar and to decide the same within three months. In pursuance of the above order of the High Court, the representation of the said Rakesh Kumar was placed before the District Magistrate Agra. The District Magistrate, Agra while considering the representation of the said Rakesh Kumar vide order dated 23.8.2006 rejected his representation and at the same time ordered for cancellation of the petitioner's appointment on the ground that the petitioner possesses two high school certificates namely of 1993 from the Madhyamik Shiksha Board,  Rajasthan and of the year 1998 of the Board of  High School & Intermediate Education U.P.

The contention of the petitioner is that he has not passed high school from Madhyamik Shiksha Board, Rajasthan in the year 1993.  He only possesses the high school certificate of the year 1998 from the Board of  High School & Intermediate Education U.P. Therefore, his candidature has wrongly been cancelled. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was not open for the District Magistrate to have cancelled the petitioner's candidature while dealing with the representation of the said Rakesh Kumar.

This Court vide order dated 20.11.2006 has directed Sri H.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad to produce the original record on 30.11.2006 pertaining to the selection of the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra.

Today the matter is on the daily cause list. List has been revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.5,  and the original record has not been produced.

The averments made in paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit that the petitioner has only passed high school in the year 1998 from Board of  High School & Intermediate Education U.P. and has not appeared in the high school examination in the year 1993 from the Madhyamik Shiksha Board, Rajasthan have remained uncontroverted. Therefore, I am of the view that the candidature/appointment of the petitioner as  Shiksha Mitra was not liable to be cancelled on the ground that he possesses two certificates of high school i.e. one from Rajasthan and other from Uttar Pradesh. The impugned order itself records that only the high school certificate of the year 1998 issued by the Board of  High School & Intermediate Education U.P and that of intermediate examination of the year 2000 of Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal of the petitioner are on record.  It means the petitioner had not filed any certificate of high school of the year 1993 of the Madhyamik Shiksha Board, Rajasthan. Therefore, the allegations in this regard made by the complainant or by the said Rakesh Kumar are not correct and does not stand substantiated even from the facts stated in the impugned order.

Apart from the above, there is nothing on record to establish that the certificate of high school  of the petitioner issued by the Board of High School & Intermediate Education U.P. in the year 1998 is forged or fictitious or is not otherwise genuine. Therefore, the petitioner possesses a proper certificate of the high school and intermediate and as such is qualified for appointment as Shiksha Mitra irrespective of the allegation i.e. he has also passed high school from Rajasthan.

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.8.2006 passed by the District Magistrate, Agra (respondent No. 3) is quashed in so far as it relates to the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment as Shiksha Mitra.

Petition  allowed.

Dt. 30.11.2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.