Sunita Devi vs State of U.P. and Others

V.K. Shukla, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court questioning the validity of the order dated 03.08.2010 wherein District Basic Education Officer in pursuance of the order passed by this Court has stayed the order dated 04.05.2010.

Brief background of the case is that selection proceedings taken place in academic session 2001-02 wherein applications were invited from eligible candidates having requisite qualification for being appointed on the post of Shiksha Mitra. Priyanka Singh, respondent No. 6 was selected. Only grievance raised by the petitioner is that she is daughter in law of Pradhan, as such she could not have been officered appointment.

Complaint was made and thereafter selection of Priyanka Singh was cancelled on 07.05.2005. Priyanka Singh, respondent No. 5 preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44042 of 2005 and said writ petition was ultimately allowed on 23.08.2005 in following manner.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra for the respondent No. 5.

The challenge is to the order dated 07.05.2005 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) whereby directions have been issued for holding fresh selection in view of the complaint made by Smt. Sunita Chauhan respondent No. 4 herein.

The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that she was selected in accordance with Government order and that there is absolutely no discrepancy in the selection of the petitioner and a frivolous complaint was lodged by respondent No. 5 which has resulted in passing of the impugned order. It is further stated that the impugned order has been passed without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioner. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 5 and it has been stated that petitioner''s engagement as Shiksha Mitra is in violation of the government order, inasmuch as as she happens to be the daughter-in-law of the Gram Pradhan. A perusal of the Government Order would indicate that a daughter-in-law is not within the prohibited category and, as such, the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the respondents is untenable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the proceedings sought to be quashed, are unsustainable and therefore, the order dated 07.05.2005 issued on 16.05.2005 appended as Annexure-11 to the writ petition is hereby quashed.

The writ petition stands allowed with no orders as to cost.

After the said judgment has been delivered Priyanka Singh has been permitted to discharge her duty. On 04.05.2010 District Basic Education Officer on same set of grounds which has been taken in the past proceeded to cancel the selection of Smt. Priyanka Singh and thereafter District Basic Education Officer on being apprised of the judgment passed proceeded to pass order dated 03.08.2010. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Grijesh Tiwari, Advocate contended with vehemence that order dated 03.08.2010 is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable order and suffers from apparent illegality as Smt. Priyanka Singh by virtue of being daughter in law of Gram Pradhan could not have been appointed, as such writ petition in question deserves to be allowed.

Countering the said submission, learned Standing counsel as well as Sri Ghanshyam Maurya, Advocate on the other hand contended that once issue has been finally resolved by this Court then District Basic Education Officer could not have cancelled the said selection based on the same ground, as such writ petition in question deserves to be dismissed.

After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging in the present case is that candidature of Priyanka Singh has been sought to be non-suited only on the ground that she is daughter in law of Gram Pradhan. This Court vide its judgment dated 23.08.2005 clearly over-ruled the said objection that her appointment be cancelled on the ground that she is daughter in law as daughter in law was not at all falling with the prohibited category. Once judgment dated 23.08.2010 was holding the field then on the same set of ground District Basic Education Officer, after taking concurrence of the District Magistrate, could not have passed order dated 04.05.2010 which is writ apparent that said order is in ignorance of the judgment passed by this Court. Once order dated 04.05.2010 is ignorance of the judgment of this Court and moment District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur was apprised of the said order he revoked the same and in such a situation and in this background there is hardly any scope of interference as judgment dated 23.08.2005 is still holding the field as such petitioner cannot assail the validity of the order as has been sought to be done

Consequently, present writ petition as it has been framed and drawn is dismissed.