Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1728 (ALL)

RAM KRIT RAM v. STATE OF U P

2009-04-24

V.K.SHUKLA

body2009
V. K. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER has filed present writ petition, questioning the validity of order dated 26. 03. 2009 passed by District Magistrate, Ghazipur, rejecting the representation of the petitioner. Brief background of the case is that on 11. 10. 2008 an advertisement was issued in daily newspaper "dainik Jagaran" for making selection and appointment on the post of Shikshamitra. Petitioner submits that he applied for consideration his candidature on the post in question; his application was finalized by the Village Education Committee, but on account of active collusion of respondents, Shashi Kiran Rai had been appointed by order dated 23. 01. 2009. Petitioner preferred writ petition No. 3769 of 2009 before this Court, and this Court asked the District Magistrate concerned to consider the grievance of the petitioner. Thereafter, the District Magistrate considered the grievance of the petitioner and rejected his claim. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed. ( 2 ) SRI A. K. Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the present case, the District Magistrate has clearly misdirected himself while passing the impugned order by ignoring this aspect of the matter that if such position is accepted, then the same would tantamount to cent per cent reservation in favour of women, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed. ( 3 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel, as well as Sri K. S. Kushwaha and Sri Anuj Kumar, Advocates, on the other hand, contended that selection and appointment on the post of Shikshamitra has been made strictly as per policy formulated, and it cannot be termed to be a case of cent per cent reservation in favour of women, as such writ petition deserves to be dismissed, specially when the selected candidate has not been impleaded and arrayed as party respondent in the present writ petition. ( 4 ) AFTER respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which emerges in the present case is that for primary School Hata, District Ghazipur, two posts of Shikshamitra were identified. The first post was occupied by Shashi Kant Pal and the second one by Smt. Tara Pandey. The first post fell vacant on account of tendering resignation by Shashi Kant Pal. The said first post was to be filled up as per the Government Orders dated 01. 07. 2000 and 21. 01. The first post was occupied by Shashi Kant Pal and the second one by Smt. Tara Pandey. The first post fell vacant on account of tendering resignation by Shashi Kant Pal. The said first post was to be filled up as per the Government Orders dated 01. 07. 2000 and 21. 01. 2008, which clearly and categorically provided that after fresh delimitation of the Gram Panchayat, the first post of Shikshamitra is to be filled up by a candidate of the category from which the Pradhan of the village hails. After fresh delimitation of the village in question, the post of Pradhan has been reserved for female category candidate, as such the first post of Shikshamitra has to be filled up by female candidate as per policy formulated. In this background, the appointment which has been made of female candidate on the first post of Shikshamitra is strictly in consonance with the policy formulated. It is totally incorrect to say that this is a case of cent per cent reservation in favour of women. Scheme of Shikshamitra is not employment oriented scheme, rather said scheme is to engage youths to come forward with the motive of community service. Earlier the first post was occupied by Shashi Kant Pal as per delimitation of the village and the second post was treated to be unreserved, and under 50 % quota meant for women, it was offered to a female candidate. The post in question i. e. the first post of Shikshamitra has fallen vacant on account of tendering resignation by Shashi Kant Pal; the same has been filled up as per fresh delimitation of the village; and it has fallen in the category of women, which is per chance as per the policy, but it cannot be said to be a case of cent per cent reservation in favour of women. The claim of the petitioner is totally misconceived and devoid of any substance. ( 5 ) EVEN otherwise no relief can be accorded to the petitioner for the simple reason that the petitioner has not impleaded and arrayed the selected candidate as party respondent, as such present writ petition is bad for non joinder of necessary party. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, writ petition, as it has been framed and drawn, is dismissed. .