Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1195 (ALL)

SEEMA v. STATE OF U P

2009-04-08

BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA

body2009
B. K. NARAYANA, J. Heard Sri H. S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party No. 1, Sri Jogendra Nath Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and Sri R. R. Dev, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 5. The brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition are that a notification was issued on 26. 05. 2007 by the opposite party No. 2 for making recruitment of Shiksha Mitra in Navin Primary School Shahapurpuran, District Sultanpur, hereinafter referred to as "the School". Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner applied in the prescribed form before the opposite party No. 4 for being considered for engagement as Shiksha Mitra. Alongwith her application, the petitioner also submitted a domicile certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sultanpur certifying that the petitioner is resident of Village Pathkhauli, Post- Lambhua, Tehsil-Lambhua, District Sultanpur. Since the name of the petitioner appeared at serial no. 1 in the merit list prepared by the opposite party No. 4, the petitioner was recommended to be engaged as Shiksha Mitra in the School by the opposite party No. 4 vide its resolution dated 15. 06. 2007. However, opposite party No. 2 illegally disapproved the recommendation made by the opposite party No. 4 for engaging the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra only on the ground that the domicile certificate submitted by the petitioner was more than one year old and recommended the appointment of the opposite party No. 5 as Shiksha Mitra by his order dated 30. 09. 2007, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure No. 13 to the Writ Petition, although the domicile certificate submitted by the petitioner was neither found by the opposite party No. 2 a forged document nor the same was alleged to have been issued by an incompetent authority. The said order of the opposite party No. 2 was approved by the opposite party No. 3 on the same date i. e. 30. 09. 2007. Hence, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the orders dated 30. 09. 2007 passed by the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 as contained in Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition. 09. 2007. Hence, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the orders dated 30. 09. 2007 passed by the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 as contained in Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 5, it has been submitted that the order passed by the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 do not suffer from any infirmity as the eligibility criteria prescribed for the engagement of Shiksha Mitra requires that a domicile certificate must not be more than six months old. It is noteworthy that the opposite parties have failed to bring on record any Government Order requiring that a domicile certificate should not be of more than six months old in order to be a valid domicile certificate. I have carefully examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. The reason given in the impugned order passed by the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 for holding that the petitioner was not eligible to be engaged as Shiksha Mitra on the ground that the application form submitted by the petitioner was incomplete for the reason that the domicile certificate submitted by her was more than one year old, is totally unsustainable. The opposite parties have failed to show any Government Order prescribing any such requirement that a domicile certificate, in order to be a valid domicile certificate, should not be more than six months old. In my opinion, the candidature of the petitioner has been illegally rejected by the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 by the impugned orders For the aforesaid reason, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 30. 09. 2007 passed by the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 (Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 30. 09. 2007 passed by the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 (Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the opposite party No. 3 for considering and deciding the candidature of the petitioner for engagement as Shiksha Mitra in Navin Primary School Shahapurpuran, District Sultanpur afresh after taking into account the domicile certificate submitted by the petitioner and affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the opposite party No. 5, strictly in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. .