Rakesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and others

Dilip Gupta, J.

The dispute in the present petition relates to selection of Shiksha Mitra for Gram Panchayat Pohara Block Badagaon, in Primary Vidyalaya Baragarh, district Jhansi for the academic session 200506.

The records indicate that the post was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate and earlier one Vijay Singh was selected but on objection being raised that he was not a resident of the village Pohara, an inquiry was ordered to be conducted. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report in favour of Vijay Singh against which Rajesh Kumar respondent No. 5 in the present petition filed a writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 38894 of 2006 which was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 24th July, 2006 with a direction to the District Magistrate to pass an appropriate order regarding the selection of Shiksha Mitra after hearing the parties concerned. The District Magistrate has now passed the order dated 11th September, 2006 which is impugned in the present petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Sudama Ji Sandilya learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5.

A perusal of the order passed by the District Magistrate shows that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 24th July, 2006, notices were issued to the concerned persons on 14th August, 2006 requiring them to appear before the District Magistrate on 28th August, 2006 regarding the selection of Shiksha Mitra. Pursuant to the said directions, the Gram Pradhan, the Principal, Sri Rakesh Kumar, Sri Vinod Kumar, Sri Vijay Singh and Sri Rajesh Kumar appeared before the District Magistrate on 28th August, 2006 and after examining the records the District Magistrate found that Rajesh Kumar obtained 64.5 marks whereas Rakesh Kumar, Vinod Kumar and Vijay Singh obtained only 51.64, 44.43 and 57.38 marks respectively. He, therefore, observed that Rajesh Kumar who had obtained the highest number of marks should be selected and, accordingly, cancelled the selection of Vijay Singh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 5 Rajesh Kumar could not have been selected as he is not a resident of the village concerned and since the order has been passed by the District Magistrate without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner he could not apprise the District Magistrate of this fact.

The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that opportunity was not granted to him cannot be accepted in view of the categorical statement made by the District Magistrate in the impugned order that the petitioner had appeared before him on 28th August, 2006 pursuant to the notice issued to him. There is no categorical statement in the writ petition that this statement which has been recorded by the District Magistrate is incorrect and only a bald statement has been made in the petition that the order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 5 it has been categorically stated that the petitioner had appeared before the District Magistrate on 28th August, 2006. It has also been stated that the respondent No. 5 is a resident of the village concerned and the SubDivisional Magistrate has also issued a certificate in that regard. He also states that his name is mentioned in the electoral roll of the year 2003 relating to village Pohara.

There is nothing on the record to indicate that the petitioner raised any grievance before the District Magistrate regarding the resident certificate of respondent No. 5. In such circumstances, it is also not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 5 is not a resident of village Pohara.

There is, therefore, no merit in this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order granted earlier stands vacated.