High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Madhuri Kumari v. Collector/District Magistrate, Jaunpur And Others - WRIT - A No. 17059 of 2007  RD-AH 5869 (2 April 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.17059 of 2007
Smt. Madhuri Kumari
Collector/District Magistrate, Jaunpur and others
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court questioning the validity of decision dated 26.02.2007 taken by District magistrate, Jaunpur, canceling the candidature of petitioner and holding appointment of Vinod Kumar Yadav as valid.
Brief background of the case is that selection proceedings were undertaken for making selection and appointment on the post of Shikshamitra. Smt. Madhuri Kumari and Vinod Kumar Yadav had applied for consideration of their candidature. Gram Shiksha Samiti after giving weightage of 10% to Vinod Kumar finalized his name. Said action was objected to by the petitioner by making representation dated 06.12.2005. The District Selection Committee finalized the name of petitioner and she was sent for training. After training was complete she joined on 07.04.2006 as Shikshamitra. Selection of Smt. Madhuri Kumri had been challenged by Vinod Kumar Yadav by preferring writ petition No. 6202 of 2006, whereupon this Court asked the District Magistrate to decide the matter. Thereafter decision dated 26.02.2007 has been taken, which is subject matter of present writ petition.
Sri Ashish Singh/Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the present case weightage of 10%, which has been extended Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, qua the same totally incorrect criteria has been applied and undue benefit has been extended to Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, whereas merit position of petitioner is much higher, as such by no stretch of imagination her candidature could have been cancelled.
Learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri P.D. Tripathi, Advocate, on the other hand, contended that Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav is physically handicapped and as such weightage of 10% has been rightly given to him by adopting correct method of computation of marks, as such there is no infirmity in the view which has been taken.
After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which emerges is to the effect that qua the incumbents who are physically handicapped, widow, divorced lady, policy decision has been taken, which was even mentioned in the advertisement that average shall be taken of the educational qualification of the incumbents and thereafter benefit of 10% weightage has to be awarded. In the present case it is true that merit position of petitioner is higher, but once 10% weightage is awarded to Vinod Kumar Yadav on account of his being physically handicapped, then the merit position of the petitioner is low qua the merit of Vinod Kumar Yadav. Emphasis of petitioner is that on the average which has been worked out on the same 10% is to be awarded and not overall 10% weightage. There is total misconception on the part of petitioner, inasmuch as on average which is worked out, thereafter 10% weightage is to be awarded. The language of the policy is clear and explicit. Said policy discussion is purposive, so that interse physically handicapped/widow/divorcee candidates, there is no disparity, and they are treated equally. 10% weightage is to be accorded, after the average is computed, and not on the average computed. Thus, the view which has been taken need not be interfered with.
Writ petition lacks substance and the same is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.