Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1291 (ALL)

CHANDRA PRABHA. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2008-07-10

S.P.MEHROTRA, V.M.SAHAI

body2008
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 states that he does not propose to file a counter-affidavit to the delay condonation application and the delay in filing the special appeal may be condoned. 2. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application is sufficient. Application is allowed. Delay in filing the special appeal is condoned. Office is directed to allot a regular number to this appeal. 3. The present special appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.1.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11571 of 2007. 4. It appears that in the year 2004 selection for the post of Shiksha Mitra in village Faridpur Imma, Post Office Naugavan, District J.P. Nagar was held in which the respondent No. 5, Mukesh Kumar was selected and was sent for training. However, subsequently, it transpired that the respondent No. 5 was involved in a criminal case, in consequence of which the District Basic Education Officer, J.P. Nagar by an order dated 4.10.2004 cancelled the selection of the respondent No. 5 Mukesh Kumar, and instead, selected the appellant Smt. Chandra Prabha on the post of Shiksha Mitra. Thereafter, it appears that the appellant’s term was renewed from time to time. 5. In the meantime, on a writ petition filed by the respondent No. 5 being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45093 of 2004, a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 9.11.2006 permitted the respondent No. 5 to file a representation before the District Magistrate, and the District Magistrate in turn was directed to decide the said representation. Pursuant to the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the District Magistrate passed an order dated 10.1.2007 and directed that a fresh selection of Shiksha Mitra in village Faridpur Imma for the session 2007-2008 be held in accordance with law. 6. Against the said order dated 10.1.2007, the respondent No. 5 filed the aforementioned writ petition being Writ Petition No. 11517 of 2007 before this Court impleading the appellant as one of the respondents in the writ petition. By the order dated 22.1.2008 the learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition and directed the District Basic Education Officer to ensure that fresh selection for the post of Shiksha Mitra be held within two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. By the order dated 22.1.2008 the learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition and directed the District Basic Education Officer to ensure that fresh selection for the post of Shiksha Mitra be held within two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. 7. We have heard Sri V.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Sri A.A. Kazmi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4, and Shri Arun Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5, and perused the record. 8. Sri V.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been working as Shiksha Mitra since 2004, and she is entitled to get her term renewed for the next session. 9. Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that the order passed by the District Magistrate has given cogent and valid reasons for holding the fresh selection on the post of Shiksha Mitra instead of granting renewal of term of the appellant. 10. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the District Magistrate in his order dated 10.1.2007 has given valid and cogent reasons for holding fresh selection for the session 2007-2008 and no illegality has been committed by him in passing the said order. The learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the order of the District Magistrate and rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 5. 11. It is noteworthy that the appellant herself did not challenge the order dated 10.1.2007 passed by the District Magistrate by filing writ petition and, therefore, it is not open to the appellant to raise any grievance against the said order for the first time in the present special appeal. The learned Single Judge has noted in his order that the learned Counsel for the appellant did not appear before the learned Single Judge even though the case was taken up in the revised list. 12. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this special appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. ————