High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Diwakar Chaubey v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary Basic Education And Others - WRIT - A No. 3366 of 2007  RD-AH 1258 (22 January 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3366 of 2007
Diwaker Chaubey Vs. State of U.P. and others.
Hon. Ran Vijai Singh,J.
The petitioner, who happened to be a candidate for selection on the post of Shiksha Mitra pursuant to the advertisment dated 16.3.2006 issued by Special Basic Shiksha Adhikari Mirzapur, has filed the present writ petition with the following prayers:-
a. " To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned selection list dated 05.04.2006 (Annexure No. '5' to the writ petition ) for the post of Shiksha Mitra passed by the Gram Shiksha Samiti with all its consequential effects, in pursuance of the resolution dated 28.3.2006 (Annexue No. '4' to the writ petition).
b. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to join the petitioner for the post of the Shiksha Mitra, in pursuance of the earlier resolution dated 28.03.2006.
c. To issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstance of the case.
d. To award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner."
By the impugned order one Smt. Sandhya Sharma has been appointed as Shiksha Mitra in Junior Basic School, Gogahara as reserved category female candidate. The case of the petitioner is that since on the earlier occasions two posts of Shiksha Mitra were filled up from Mahila category, therefore, pursuant to the present advertisement against the existing vacancy only candidate belong to the Male category could be appointed and in not doing so, the village level committee has committed manifest error of law. In this regard the petitioner has already made a representation to the District Magistrate for redressal of his grievance pursuant to the Government Order dated.2.5.2000.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Sri C.K.Rai , learned Counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri Anuj Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent No.5.
By the consent of counsel for the parties the writ petition is decided finally with the observation that the petitioner may file fresh representation before the District Magistrate, respondent No.2. In case any such representation is filed, it may be decided by respondent No.2 by a speaking order after hearing respondents No. 4,5 and 6, if possible, within two months from the date of receipt of the representation. The petitioner will file certified copy of this order, other necessary documents and a duly stamped self-addressed envelope along with the representation. The respondent No.2 after taking decision will communicate the same to the petitioner.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.