Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J.;— List revised. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 4 and 5 and counsel for District Basic Education Officer and Mr. Vinit Kumar Singh holding brief of Mr. H.N. Singh appearing for respondent no. 5. 2. The present writ petition has been listed alongwith petition no. 52818 of 2002, which was also filed by the present petitioner hence, both petition nos. 36506 of 2007 and 52818 of 2002 are decided jointly by a common order. In the present petition, the impugned order dated 15.6.2007 passed by respondent no. 2 District Basic Education Officer, Ballia (annexure-9 to the writ petition) has been challenged with a prayer for quashing of the same. Further prayer to issue mandamus directing the respondent to permit the petitioner for holding post of Siksha Mitra. In the writ petition no. 52818 of 2002, the order dated 30.11.2002 was challenged by which the respondent no. 6 was appointed as Siksha Mitra, in that writ petition, the interim order was passed on 9.12.2002 staying the operation of the impugned order. In writ petition no. 36506 of 2007, interim order was passed on 13.8.2007 by which the operation of the impugned order dated 15.6.2007 was stayed. 3. The controversy is with regard to the appointment of Siksha Mitra, between the petitioner and respondent no. 5 Nityanand Pathak. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the post was advertised in the year 2002 for appointment of Siksha Mitra at Primary School Rakopur, Gram Panchayat Kharhatar, Block Garhwar, District Ballia alongwith other applicants, the petitioner also applied for appointment. There were four persons including the petitioner who applied for appointment as Siksha Mitra. The petitioner has secured highest quality point marks than other candidates hence he was selected and was recommended for appointment on the post of Siksha Mitra at Primary School, Rakopur. According to the petitioner, respondent no. 5 was also a member of Gram Siksha Samiti. 5. Subsequently, the respondent got the approval regarding appointment by order dated 30.11.2002 against which the writ petition no. 52818 of 2002 was filed in which the interim order was granted. Even after the interim order, the respondent no. 5 continued to work as Siksha Mitra, hence Contempt Petition No. 1239 of 2003 was filed. 5. Subsequently, the respondent got the approval regarding appointment by order dated 30.11.2002 against which the writ petition no. 52818 of 2002 was filed in which the interim order was granted. Even after the interim order, the respondent no. 5 continued to work as Siksha Mitra, hence Contempt Petition No. 1239 of 2003 was filed. Thereafter considering the case of the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed as Siksha Mitra as the proposal was made in favour of the petitioner in the year 2005-06. 6. He further submitted that Gram Pradhan was mother of the respondent no. 5 who was President of the Gram Siksha Samiti hence, according to the government order, there was a clear prohibition that the relative of the President, Secretary of Gram Siksha Samiti cannot be appointed on the post of Shiksha Mitra in same Gram Panchayat. Subsequently, by order impugned dated 15.6.2007 without giving opportunity to the petitioner, the respondent no. 5 has again been appointed as Shiksha Mitra. 7. Then the present writ petition no. 36506 of 2007 was filed in which the impugned order was again stayed. In view of the fact, petitioner has obtained highest quality point marks and in compliance of the interim order passed by this court is entitled to continue as Shiksha Mitra and the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 8. The aforesaid prayer was vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the District Basic Education Officer and respondent no. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of District Basic Education Officer, the selection proceedings of Siksha Samiti by which candidature of the applicants for the post of Siksha Mitra was approved, has been annexed as C.A.-1 to the counter affidavit and according to that there were only three applicants namely Nityanand Pathak, Harendra Singh and Sudha Singh in which respondent no. 5, Nityanand Pathak has secured highest quality point marks than other candidates hence there was recommendation for appointment of Nityanand Pathak and the petitioner was not applicant in that list. 9. According to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 5, he has tendered resignation from the post of member Siksha Samiti before the President of Siksha Samiti which was submitted on 25.4.2002 and was accepted on 27.4.2002. At that time, mother of respondent no. 5 was neither Pradhan nor President of Siksha Samiti. 9. According to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 5, he has tendered resignation from the post of member Siksha Samiti before the President of Siksha Samiti which was submitted on 25.4.2002 and was accepted on 27.4.2002. At that time, mother of respondent no. 5 was neither Pradhan nor President of Siksha Samiti. After his appointment, mother of the petitioner was elected Pradhan and President of Siksha Samiti in 2005-06 then on that ground the respondent no. 5 would not be disqualified. 10. He further submitted that after the direction for considering the matter, an inquiry was conducted and inquiry report was submitted by District Samanvayak Samudayik, Ballia dated 30.5.2007. From the perusal of the register of Siksha Samiti it was found that the meeting of the Siksha Samiti took place and on 3.5.2002, the resolution was passed and the same was sent to the District Committee on 4.5.2002. In that resolution before Siksha Samiti, there were only three applicants and on the basis of marks obtained by the candidate, respondent no. 5 was selected and his name was recommended. After completing 30th days training, he was appointed as Siksha Mitra on 13.1.2003 at Primary Vidyalaya, Rakopur and since then he was working as teacher and even the resolution was sent for renewal of his appointment. Neither there was selection of the petitioner nor there was his application before the Siksha Samiti for appointment as Siksha Mitra at Primary vidyalaya. 11. Subsequently, concealing the correct facts, the writ petition was filed in which the interim order was granted. An application dated 18.9.2007 was filed to vacate the interim order which is still pending. 12. Considered the submission of learned counsels for the parties and perused the records. Except the resolution of Siksha Samiti dated 3.5.2005 filed alongwith counter affidavit, annexed as C.A.-1, on behalf of respondent no. 2 and 3 District Magistrate, Ballia and District Basic Education Officer, Ballia, no other copy of the resolution regarding selection of the Siksha Samiti at Primary Vidyalaya, Rakopur has been filed. There were only three applicants in which the petitioner was not applicant. The respondent no. 5 obtained higher quality point marks and his name was approved. According to the said inquiry report dated 30.5.2007, the respondent no. 5 was appointed and even there was recommendation in his favour for renewal as Siksha Mitra. There were only three applicants in which the petitioner was not applicant. The respondent no. 5 obtained higher quality point marks and his name was approved. According to the said inquiry report dated 30.5.2007, the respondent no. 5 was appointed and even there was recommendation in his favour for renewal as Siksha Mitra. There is no specific denial regarding the inquiry report as well as copy of the resolution of Siksha samiti dated 3.5.2002. As far as the allegation that the mother of the respondent no. 5 was Pradhan and President of the Siksha Samiti is concerned she was neither Pradhan nor President of Siksha Samiti at the relevant date when the selection and appointment took place in the year 2003. The respondent no. 5 had already resigned from the membership of Shiksha Samiti which was accepted on 27.4.2002, much before resolution dated 3.5.2002. 13. Hence, in view of the fact no interference is required with the impugned order. The present petition is misconceived, against the evidence on record. The respondent no. 5 is entitled to continue as Siksha Mitra till any fresh order is passed in accordance with law by any competent authority or court. 14. Accordingly both the petitions are hereby dismissed. The interim order is hereby discharged. 15. No order as to costs. _____________