Krishnu Ram vs Director Of Primary Education To The Government And Others

Sabina, J

Appellant has filed the Letters Patent Appeal, challenging the order dated 13.05.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

Appellant had filed the writ petition, seeking following relief:-

“In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned in paras supra, it is therefore, respectfully submitted/prayed that this original application may kindly be allowed and appointment/selection of respondent No.6 may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the applicant being meritorious candidate may kindly be appointed/selected for the post of Assistant Teacher as un-reserved IRDP in the interest of justice equity and fair play.”

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that vide Annexure A-7 (attached to the writ petition), name of the father of respondent No.6 was deleted from the list of IRDP by the Gram Sabha in the year 2001-2002. Despite the said fact, respondent No.6 has been appointed as Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School Parli on 28th February, 2006.

Learned counsel for respondent No.6, on the other hand, has placed reliance on Certificate Annexure R6/4 (attached to the writ petition), to substantiate his argument that the name of father of respondent No.6 was duly included in the list of IRDP/BPL category. The said certificate was issued on 4th October, 2005. Learned Single Judge by placing reliance on Annexure R6/4, has rightly dismissed the petition filed by the appellant.

By filing the writ petition, appellant had challenged the appointment of respondent No.6 to the post of Assistant Teacher on the ground that respondent No.6 did not possess IRDP certificate at the time of interview on 9th February, 2006. Although, the appellant had placed reliance on Annexure A-7, wherein, it was mentioned that the name of father of respondent No.6 has been deleted from the list of IRDP by the Gram Sabha in the year 2001-2002, however, on the other hand, respondent No.6 had placed reliance on Certificate Annexure R6/4 issued on 4th October, 2005 to the effect that the name of his father was included in the list of IRDP/BPL category. Admittedly, the correctness of Certificate Annexure R6/4 has not been challenged before any competent authority.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Single Judge had, thus, rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant as respondent No.6 had been issued appointment letter on the basis of Certificate Annexure R6/4, which has not been held to be invalid by any competent authority.

No ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, the letters patent appeal is dismissed.