High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Amardeo Singh Yadav v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 29322 of 2007  RD-AH 11093 (4 July 2007)
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner. Sri S.K. Agrawal appears for respondent no. 4, Sri Anuj Kumar appears for respondent No. 6 and Sri O.P.Gupta appears for respondent No.7.
By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 9.3.2007 by which order the District Magistrate has held that the approval granted to the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra be withdrawn and papers be submitted for approval of the persons having highest quality point marks. The respondent no. 7 filed writ petition being writ petition No. 4977 of 2007 challenging the selection on the post of Shiksha Mitra. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 1.2.2007 with the observation that the petitioner (respondent no. 7) may approach the District Magistrate who may consider the grievance raised. The District Magistrate by the impugned order has held that the quality point marks of the respondent no. 7 was 56.75 whereas the quality point marks of the petitioner is 50.85. It was further recorded that the application was given by the respondent no. 7 but the same was not included by the Gram Shiksha Samiti in the eligibility list. The District Magistrate has recorded that it was admitted by the Secretary of the Gram Shiksha Samiti that the application given by the respondent no. 7 was within time. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that the selection of the petitioner was made and the petitioner was not heard.
I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
The petitioner was continuing as Shiksha Mitra on the basis of his selection. The renewal of his tenure granted from year to year continued. this Court has already directed the respondent no. 7to represent his claim against the wrong selection before the District Magistrate in its order dated 1.2.2007. The petitioner cannot be permitted in saying that the District Magistrate was not entitled to consider the grievance of the petitioner's selection. In so far as the second submission that the petitioner was not heard. Paragraph 3 of the impugned order shows that the petitioner was heard. In view of the findings given by the District Magistrate that the respondent No. 7 has given application within time no error has been committed by the District Magistrate in directing withdrawal of the approval of the petitioner. I do not find any error in the order of the District Magistrate.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.