AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Gupta, C.J.—Learned counsel for the parties are heard on I.A. No. 01/2010 an application for condonation of the delay in filing the writ appeal. On the consideration of the submission of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the writ appeal.
I.A. No. 01/2010 therefore is allowed and the delay in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned.
Shri Sandeep Dubey learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission.
Appellant - Sahasram Valre has filed this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 13.11.2009 passed in W.P.S. No. 1279/2005.
The appellant/petitioner in his writ petition was seeking quashing of the order dated 28.18.1993 so far as it related to the appointment of respondent No. 4 Smt. Madhu Namdeo as Assistant Teacher and a further direction to respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 to appoint the petitioner on the said post.
Learned single judge on a through consideration of the submission advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner and considering that respondent No. 4 Smt. Madhu Namdeo was appointed long back in the year 1993 declined to grant any of the reliefs sought by the petitioner in the writ petition.
Shri Sandeep Dubey learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned single judge has erred in dismissing the appellant''s writ petition though the appointment of respondent No. 4 Smt. Madhu Namdeo on the post of Assistant Teacher was in breach of the guide-lines in the matter.
Respondent No. 4 Smt. Madhu Namdeo was appointed as Assistant Teacher at fixed remuneration of Rs. 5000/- per month under specific scheme referred to in Annexure A/2, for a limited period. Her appointment order further provided that after completion of three years successful service, she would be eligible for appointment as Assistant Teacher after passing BTI course on her own expenses.
The sole ground pressed into service by the appellant before us in this appeal and in the writ petition for challenging the appointment of respondent No. 4 Smt. Madhu Namdeo was that she did not belong to the village where she was appointed.
Be that as it may the fact remains that it was nobody''s case that respondent No. 4 Smt. Madhu Namdeo did not possess the essential educational qualifications for the post of Assistant Teacher. Even assuming that she did not belong to the village where she was appointed that by itself will not render her appointment illegal.
We therefore do not find scope for interference in this intra court appeal. The writ appeal therefore is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily.