Roop Kumar vs State of U.P.and others

S.U. Khan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for state respondents.

In spite of sufficient service upon respondent No.7 as held by order dated 06.02.2008, no one appeared on his behalf. Through advertisement dated 19.11.2006 published in daily Hindi Newspaper ''''Dainik Jagran'', applications were invited for appointment on the posts of Shiksha Mitra in Gram Panchayat, Dashahara, Kherli, Tehsil Araniya, District Bunlandshahr. Petitioner and two other persons had applied for said posts. According to the petitioner, respondent No.7 did not apply within time fixed for making application. The Zila Samiti recommended the selection of the petitioner on 05.12.2006. The petitioner claims that in the said recommendations some interpolation was made and the name of respondent no.7 Rajesh Kumar Chauhan and one Satyaendra Pratap were added afterwards. Zila Shiksha Samiti did not approve the selection and fresh advertisement was made on 03.08.2007. In pursuance of the said advertisement, several persons including petitioner filed applications. Selection was made on 16.08.2007. According to the petitioner, respondent No.7 did not apply within the time even against the second advertisement dated 03.08.2007. Thereafter, respondent No.7 filed writ petition No.41335 of 2007, which was decided on 11.09.2007 and District Magistrate was directed to decide the controversy. District Magistrate decided the representation on 14.11.2007 and directed that application filed by respondent No.7 dated 03.12.2006 should also be included. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition.

The last date for filing application was 30.11.2006. In the impugned order D.M. clearly held that the last date to file application in pursuance of the earlier advertisement of 19th and 20th November, 2006 was 30.11.2006 and respondent No.7 Rajesh Kumar submitted his form on 03.12.2006. In the earlier part of the impugned order, it is mentioned that Rajesh Kumar stated that he had filed an application on 01.12.2006, however D.M. has categorically recorded the finding that respondent No.7 actually filed the application on 03.12.2006. D.M. further held that as earlier proposal of Shiksha Samiti dated 05.12.2006 had not been cancelled, hence fresh advertisement on the 3rd and 4th August, 2007 was not valid. Ultimately, D.M. Bulandshahr directed that the Shiksha Samiti should include the name of respondent No.7, who had filed the application on 03.12.2006 and shall prepare the list in accordance with preference and shall send the recommendation to District Level Shiksha Samiti within 15 days.

I agree with the D.M. that there was no need to issue fresh advertisement.

However, the D.M. repeatedly held in his order that respondent No.7 filed the application on 03.12.2006, while last date for filing application was 30.11.2006. Accordingly, D.M. had no jurisdiction or authority to direct that respondent No.7 should also be considered. It is clearly proved that manipulation was made and names of respondent No.7 and Satyendra Pratap was wrongly added.

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. It is directed that appointment shall be made in accordance with the recommendation of village level Committee dated 05.12.2006 without considering the names of respondent No.7 and Satyendra Pratap.