JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Shri R.C. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Jiwan Prakash Sharma holding brief of Shri Anil Kumar learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Parishad and learned counsel for the Gram Sabha as well as learned Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner contends that the respondent No. 6 is disqualified to hold the post of Shiksha Mitra as he happens to be the son of the Gram Pradhan. 3. The submission advanced is that this disqualification as contained in the Government Order does not entitle the respondent No. 6 to continue as Shiksha Mitra and in this view the selection, appointment and continuance of the respondent No. 6 should be annulled. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submits that he was selected by the Gram Shiksha Samiti in the meeting of the Village Education Committee held on 30.1.2004 in response to an advertisement which had been issued earlier for the session 2003-04. The respondent No. 6 is continuing since then and his continuance cannot be non-suited on account of his mother having been elected as Gram Pradhan in the year 2005. 5. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the date of appointment of the respondent No. 6 is January 2006 and therefore on the date of his engagement as Shiksha Mitra, the respondent No. 6 was disqualified from being appointed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the Government Order dated 10th October, 2005. There is no dispute about the disqualification as prescribed under the Rules, which clearly indicates that the son of a Gram Pradhan cannot be engaged as a Shiksha Mitra. In the instant case the advertisement is of the year 2004 and the selections have also been held by the Village Education Committee, which is the authority competent to hold selections, on 30.1.2004 itself. It is therefore clear that as on the date of filing of the application and offering the candidature of the respondent No. 6 is concerned, the said respondent was not disqualified. 7. Apart from this, the date on which the selections were held, after the expiry of the last date of the application form then also the respondent No. 6 was not disqualified. The proposal was thereafter sent to the District Level Committee for being approved. 7. Apart from this, the date on which the selections were held, after the expiry of the last date of the application form then also the respondent No. 6 was not disqualified. The proposal was thereafter sent to the District Level Committee for being approved. It is therefore clear that it is the delay caused on account of the decision of the District Level Committee in the interregnum period that the appointment came to be issued in the year 2006. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be held liable for any delayed process of the respondents for his engagement. The disqualification therefore does not get attributed for delay on the part of the authorities. 8. In view of this, the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that on the date of engagement the respondent No. 6 was disqualified cannot be accepted. The Court is supported in its view by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Basant Lal v. State of U.P. and others, 2007(3) ESC 1470 . 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 contends that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit, inasmuch as, this is a pure question of law on admitted facts that emerge from the pleadings. Learned counsel for the petitioner also prays that the matter be disposed of finally to which course the learned Standing Counsel has no objection. 10. Having recorded the conclusion drawn hereinabove, I do not find any error in the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6, which had admittedly been processed much prior to the election of his mother as Gram Pradhan. The respondent No. 6 does not suffer from any such disqualification under the Government Order dated 10.5.2005. 11. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. ————