Manoj Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Hon''ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.—By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has sought a relief to quash the order dated 3.3.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Mau. By the said order the District Magistrate concerned has found that the experience certificate of the respondent No. 6 was genuine and valid.

The brief facts of the case are that in Gram Panchayat, Mustafabad, Ratanpura district Mau the U.P. Basic Education Board runs two primary Schools namely Primary School Mustafabad-I and Mustafabad-II. On 16.12.2005 and advertisement was issued by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mau inviting applications for selection of Shiksha Mitra in Primary Schools of district Mau. The Gram Shiksha Samiti on 30.12.2005 recommended the names of the selected candidates. The petitioner submits that his name was also in the Select List. The respondent No. 8 to the writ petition Munni Singh challenged the selection of the petitioner by means of Writ Petition No. 2478 of 2007 before this Court and the said writ petition was disposed of on 13.12.2007. The main grievance of the respondent No. 8 who was petitioner therein was that her experience of Instructor in non-formal education has been ignored as her certificates were illegally not found to be correct. It was, stated by her in the said writ petition that the District Magistrate had relied on the report of the Basic Schiksha Adhikari only without making any further enquiry with regard to correctness of her certificates. This Court was satisfied that the District Magistrate did not consider the matter in proper perspective. The relevant part of the judgment is extracted herein below:

From perusal of the materials brought on record, it is clear that the petitioner has claimed her working as Instructor and has also filed certain documents including pass book of the State Bank, which is born out from Annexure-8 to the writ petition. A certificate of payment of Rs. 4300/- for working as Instructor, has also been filed and was also referred to an relied on by the petitioner. In the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, there is no consideration of the documents which were relied on by the petitioner and only on the basis of the report of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, it has been held by the District Magistrate that certificates have not been found to be correct. There is no dispute that verification report was confidential and no one was given any opportunity.

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 17.12.2006 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the District Magistrate for reconsideration and for passing a fresh order after taking into consideration the materials which were brought before the District Magistrate by the petitioner, expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. It will be open for the District Magistrate to call for any further report or verification as he deems necessary. The respondent No. 6 having been permitted to work prior to passing of the order the District Magistrate dated 17.12.2006. It is clarified that if the petitioner''s certificates of Instructor are found to be correct,the petitioner be entitled for appointed as Shiksha Mitra and consequential order be passed accordingly.

In compliance of the order of this Court dated 13.12.2007 the District Magistrate has passed the impugned order.

I have heard Sri S.K. Chaubey learned counsel holding brief of Sri S.K. Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.K. Kushwaha learned learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and 4 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1, 3, 5 and 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of the District Magistrate is illegal as he has not made any further enquiry with regard to the correctness of the certificates.

As regards, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the District Magistrate did not offered him opportunity, from perusal of the direction of this Court it reveals that the District Magistrate was directed to consider the material which were already brought before him and it was made open to the District Magistrate to call for any further report or verification as he deems necessary. The District Magistrate has complied the direction and he has called report from the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and to his satisfaction he has verified the records also. The respondent No. 8 in her counter affidavit has filed those records as Annexure-CA-1. From perusal of those record also it is evident that there is no reason to disbelieve the documents filed along with the counter affidavit and which were found to be correct by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari as well as the District Magistrate.

Having regards to the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner I am of the view that no interference is called for in the order of the District Magistrate after the matter was remitted back to the District Magistrate. He had made the enquiry with regard to the correctness of the certificates of the petitioner and he was satisfied from the records and from the report of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 13.2.2008. Certificates of respondent No. 8 with respect to the experience of Instructor non-formal education were correct. This Court in its order dated 13.12.2007 had referred the Passbook of the statement, a certificate of payment of Rs. 4,300/-paid to the respondent No. 1 as her Mandey for working as Instructor and on the basis of these material this Court was satisfied that the District Magistrate did not take these material into consideration while passing order.The District Magistrate has now reconsidered the matter in the light of the direction issued by this Court.

I am of the view, that the District Magistrate has correctly followed the order of this Court and there is no error in his order.

In these background of the aforesaid facts the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.