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


Ajay Kumar Yadav v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. - 61487 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 15845 (21 September 2007)

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. 37

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61487 of 2006

Ajay Kumar Yadav


State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Heard Sri Kripa Shankar Singh for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents no. 1, 2 and 5 and Sri Yogendra Singh for respondent no. 4.

Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 15.6.2006 whereby the respondent no. 4 has been appointed on the post of Shiksha Mitra giving her benefit of having worked as Anudeshak in accordance with the provisions of government order dated 10.10.2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in 1999, the respondent no. 4 was minor inasmuch she attained her age of majority on 10.10.1999 and, therefore, she could not have worked as Anudeshak since the scheme of Anudeshak has already been given up in 1999 and no person thereafter could have worked as Anudeshak. Since the respondent no. 4 herself attained the age of majority on 10.10.1999 by which time the scheme of Anaupcharik Shiksha Yojna was already closed, therefore, the respondent no. 4 could not have been worked as Anudeshak under a government sponsored scheme. It is said that she has worked under some non-government organization as Anudeshak for the period subsequent thereto and, therefore, her appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra giving her benefit of government order dated 10.10.2005 is clearly illegal.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 stating that the respondent no. 4 has worked as Anudeshak from 20th August 2000 till March 2001 at Junior Basic School Kasba-Ghosi, District Mau after obtaining her graduation from Poorvanchal University, Jaunpur in the year 2000. It is also stated that the Anaupcharik Shiksha Yojna ended on 31st March 2001 and not in 1999 as stated by the petitioner and in this regard a government order dated 24.3.2001 has been placed on record as Annexure CA-5. It is also submitted that respondent no. 6 has worked as Anudeshak from 20th August 2000 to March 2001 and hence was entitled for benefit of government order dated 10.10.2005 for claiming preference on the post of Shiksha Mitra qua petitioner. It is also said that the respondent no. 4 having already been appointed on the post of Shiksha Mitra has completed her training from 23.6.2006 till 22.7.2006 and thereafter she has been posted and joined on the post of Shiksha Mitra at Junior Basic School, Chhapra Sultanpur-I, Block Azamagarh, District Azamgarh on 24th July 2006 and has been teaching and also paid salary w.e.f. 24.7.2006 to 23.10.2006.

Petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit denying the contention of the counter affidavit and reiterating the averments made in the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the District Basic Education Officer verified the working of the petitioner as Anudeshak from 1998 till 2003 by its letter dated 24th May 2006, Annexure-4, though admittedly the respondent no. 4 has not worked as Anudeshak during the said period and, therefore, it is said that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Anudeshak is clearly incorrect. However, from the record, it is evident that the respondent no. 4 has actually worked as Anudeshak from August 2000 to March 2001 and not from 1998. She herself has claimed to have worked as Anudeshak only from August 2000 to March 2001 and this fact could not have been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner by placing any relevant material on record.

That being so, merely because District Basic Education Officer mentioned a wrong period that would not adversely affect the respondent no. 4 in order to give benefit for appointment on preferential basis pursuant to the government order dated 10.10.2005 in which the only requirement is one must have worked as Anudeshak. In the Case of Dayaram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & another 2007 (5) ADJ 359, it was held that the preference as contemplated in the government order dated 10.10.2005 means that the candidates who have worked as Anudeshak, have to be given preference in bloc over the others.

In this view of the matter, I do not find any error in appointment of respondent no. 4 on the post of Shiksha Mitra. The writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.

Dated. 21.9.2007



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.