SMT. REETA SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Smt. Reeta Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 22265 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 8830 (9 May 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                                                                                    Court No. 39

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22265 of 2007

Smt. Reeta Singh

Versus

State of U.P. and others.

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner has approached this court questioning the validity of the decision taken by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur on 20.3.2007 rejecting the claim of petitioner wherein she has been claiming preference in the matter of selection and appointment of Shiksha Mitra. Brief background of the case is that selection proceedings had been undertaken for making selection and appointment of Shiksha Mitra pursuant to the advertisement dated 9.6.2006. Petitioner also applied and Gram Shiksha Samiti considered the respective application. Petitioner has contended that she had rendered service in Anupcharik  Shiskha for the period starting  from 30.11.1997 to 30.4.1998 under the  supervision and control of District Urban Development Authority (DUDA), as such she be accorded preference in the matter of selection and appointment of Shiksha Mitra.  As  claim  of petitioner  was  not being  accepted, she  preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.59951 of 2006 and this court on 2.11.2006 asked the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, Jaunpur to look into the matter and thereafter District Magistrate, Jaunpur has rejected the claim of petitioner.

Sri Manish Dev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case,  in all eventuality petitioner was entitled to be extended preference, keeping in view of her service rendered in Anupcharik Shiksha and as such view taken by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur is unsustainable, and as such writ petition is liable to be allowed.

Sri K.K. Chand, learned Standing Counsel and Sri P.D. Tripathi, Advocate, representing Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. at Allahabad on the other hand contended that rightful view has been taken, as petitioner at the best has functioned as Anudeshak  in Non Government Organisation and as such no benefit can be extended, as such writ petition deserved to be dismissed.

After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed factual position, which is emerging  that the  State Government on 28.2.2006 has taken the view that benefit of preference shall be extended to only said  non formal education, Anudeshak/Parveyashak (Instructor/ Supervisor) who had worked  (under the Scheme) directly  under the control  of the State Government and said benefit shall not be offered to those instructor/Supervisor, who has worked with Non Government Organization. The Project Officer, (DUDA), District Gorakhpur on 5.7.2006 has clearly  submitted that the petitioner had functioned in Anupcharik Shiksha in programme conducted by  "Jeevan Utkarsh Sansthan, Surya Vihar Colony, District Gorakhpur" and said social activity was being carried out through Non Government Social Organisations on behalf of (DUDA), Gorakhpur under "Rashtriya Malin Basti Vikas Karyakram". This  certification in no way establishes that Anupcharik Shiksha was directly under the control of the State Government.

Before this court, there is nothing, which may demonstrate  that the procedure of appointment and mode of functioning of the Instructor/Supervisor who have  worked in Scheme under the control of State Government and under NGO's are identical and similar in order to extend similar benefit. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13725 of 2006 ( Smt. Ushai Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others),  this court has already taken the view that State Government cannot be said to have unreasonably classified the petitioner in a different class  under the orders issued on 28.2.2006. In view of this, plea of  Article 14 raised on behalf of the petitioner is not acceptable .

Consequently, writ petition lacks substance and same is dismissed.

Dt. 9.5.2007

T.S..

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 |

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