Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 633 (ALL)

SHANTI DEVI v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-02-18

AMITAVA LALA, ASHOK SRIVASTAVA

body2010
JUDGMENT Honble Amitava Lala, A.C.J.—The appellant has proceeded with this appeal challenging the order of the learned single Judge dated 3.2.2010.The candidature of the second candidate in panel list of the candidates under Annexure-2, page-68 of the paper book was cancelled due to her filing a forged residential certificate as per the report of the District Magistrate. The petitioner-appellant is 4th in panel of the candidates at whose instance the investigation was made. Now by the order impugned in the writ petition the selection of the second empanelled candidate has been cancelled but at the same time the entire selection process was cancelled directing to make the selection afresh. 2. The contention of the appellant before us is that the period is going to expire by 31.3.2010. She is fourth in the panel. The 1st empanelled candidate was not in consideration for being under-age, the 2nd one has been removed and 3rd was given service in a different village, therefore her candidature should be considered. 3. We are of the view that fresh selection is always a welcoming situation, but in this case the period is going to expire by 31st March, 2010. The other part of question is imparting education to the children. If the fresh selection is followed, it will not only lead to further expenditure but also delay in imparting education to the students of grassroot level. Moreover, the petitioner-appellant is not an unsuccessful candidate but empanelled candidate as per merit list prepared by the Selection Committee. 4. Against this background we are of the view that atleast for the remaining period upto 31st March, 2010 the petitioner-appellant can be allowed to join and continue in the service leaving the question of renewal, if any, in the hands of authority concerned and we direct accordingly. 5. It has been brought to our knowledge that the term of a Shiksha Mitra is for one year only subject to renewal. The post of a Shiksha Mitra may fall vacant before expiry of one year term of an incumbent. It appears that there is no Rule or Government Order to regulate the filling up of such vacancy for the residuary period. The post of a Shiksha Mitra may fall vacant before expiry of one year term of an incumbent. It appears that there is no Rule or Government Order to regulate the filling up of such vacancy for the residuary period. Therefore, we feel it proper to direct/advise the State Government to make proper Rules or issue Government Order to lay down a procedure to regulate the filling up of such post falling vacant before time due to any reason whatsoever. Framing of such Rules or issuance of a suitable Government Order will also minimize such type of litigations. 6. However, till such time an appropriate scrutiny is not made by framing Rules or government order as aforesaid, the concerned District Magistrate or the appropriate Government authority will make scrutiny of the papers relating to the candidates and then will be placed to the Selection committee for the purpose of selection. Such exercise is to be treated as final. It is totally undesirable state of affairs that the Selection committee will make the selection, which will be challenged at the instance of either an unsuccessful candidate or a candidate not placed on the higher side as a matter of course and the Court, by routine order, will direct the concerned District Magistrate or the authority to do the same exercise required to be done earlier and thereby frustrate the selection of the Selection Committee. In case, scrutiny with regard to eligibility, if prescribed by the District Magistrate or the appropriate governmental authority, prior to placing the matter before the Selection Committee takes place, then there will be hardly anything for further litigation challenging the order of the Selection Committee. Moreover, it is well settled position by now that the selection of the Selection committee should not ordinarily be interfered with by the Court. It is true to say that fraud or forgery make any endeavour as nullity, but our experience in this branch shows in each alternative matter there can not be questions of fraud and forgery in scrutinizing the residential address and other necessary aspects to treat a candidate as eligible to place for selection. It is true to say that fraud or forgery make any endeavour as nullity, but our experience in this branch shows in each alternative matter there can not be questions of fraud and forgery in scrutinizing the residential address and other necessary aspects to treat a candidate as eligible to place for selection. It is further to be remembered that the pendency or increase of litigation is not only task of the Court but also to the State, therefore, the provision by way of legislation is much more required than curing the defects through the Court of law, but for the interim period, direction of the Court will be followed. 7. With these observations and directions upon the State, we dispose of the special appeal by modifying the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent indicated above. 8. However, no order is passed as to costs. Honble Ashok Srivastava, J.—I agree. ————