Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J.;— Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent no.4, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned order dated 1.12.2006 passed by the District Magistrate, Varanasi and further for commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra. 3. The controversy involved in the present case is regarding appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra in pursuance of advertisement issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Varanasi in the month of October, 2005 for appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra,thereafter, in pursuance of advertisement, the selection process was started. The Gram Shiksha Samiti considered the name of the candidates and those names were forwarded. One Smt. Anupama Sharma has obtained highest marks hence her name was recommended for appointment and the respondent no.4 was at serial no.2 on the merit list. After the advertisement the government order was issued on 10.10.2005 amending the earlier government order dated 1.7.2000 in which it was provided that for recruitment of Shiksha Mitra the priority should have been given to those candidates, who had experience of 'Non Formal Education Scheme' and relaxation in the age was also given to certain categories of candidates. Thereafter, again post was advertised on 1.6.2006 by District Basic Education Officer in newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' and the petitioner along-with other candidates including respondent no.4 have applied and on the basis of quality point marks the name of the petitioner was recommended by the Gram Shiksha Samiti for appointment as Shiksha Mitra. In the meantime, writ petition no.32445 of 2006 was filed. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed off with the direction to District Magistrate to decide the representation of respondent no.4. Thereafter, the earlier selection and recommendation was returned from the office of the District Magistrate and there was a fresh advertisement hence petitioner was not entitled to be appointed on the post of earlier recommendation and even in the earlier recommendation name of the petitioner was at serial no.2. Thereafter, the earlier selection and recommendation was returned from the office of the District Magistrate and there was a fresh advertisement hence petitioner was not entitled to be appointed on the post of earlier recommendation and even in the earlier recommendation name of the petitioner was at serial no.2. The District Magistrate by order dated 22.8.2006 allowed the representation of the respondent no.4, Neetu Singh and held that Smt. Neetu Singh was entitled to be selected and appointed on the post of Shiksha Mitra because in view of the complaint and inquiry report Smt. Anupama Sharma was married at Azamgarh and she did not remain resident of that village hence the respondent no.4, who was at serial no.2 in the merit list, was selected and the direction was to appoint her on the post of Shiksha Mitra, thereafter, she joined and as per information she is still working as Shiksha Mitra. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while deciding the representation of the respondent no.4, Smt. Neetu Singh, the District Magistrate failed to consider that there was direction for fresh advertisement for selection in pursuance of government order 10.10.2005 however, only the earlier recommendation was considered by the District Magistrate. Though the earlier proposal was returned in view of the amended government order. The writ petition no.53166 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner, which was disposed off by the High Court by order dated 22.9.2006 and in pursuance of order of the High Court the District Magistrate has considered the representation afresh. However, claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that as per government order only two Shiksha Mitra can be appointed since 50% quota was reserved for women and one male person was already working hence any lady was to be appointed as second Shiksha Mitra. According to earlier proposal the selection was never given effect and before that there was a second advertisement hence the District Magistrate has committed error in deciding the representation against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent no.4 hence the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and learned Standing Counsel opposed aforesaid prayer and submitted that the District Magistrate has rightly considered the facts and circumstances of the case. Earlier the recommendation was there and in that recommendation selection process was not cancelled. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and learned Standing Counsel opposed aforesaid prayer and submitted that the District Magistrate has rightly considered the facts and circumstances of the case. Earlier the recommendation was there and in that recommendation selection process was not cancelled. He further submitted that in subsequent proceeding name of Smt. Vibha Sharma was recommended and it was further informed that respondent no.4 Neetu Singh is still working. Since the earlier selection process was cancelled and there was no violation of the government order hence rightly the representation was decided in favour of the respondent no.4 because Anupma Sharma, who was in the merit list at serial no.1, was not eligible as she has left the village and she was married in district Azamgarh hence respondent no.4 was rightly selected. As far as the petitioner is concerned, even in the subsequent selection list one Vibha Sharma was at serial no.1 and the petitioner was at serial no.2 though according to petitioner she was also married. Hence petitioner was not entitled for appointment as Shiksha Mitra. 6. Considered the submission of counsel for the parties. The District Magistrate has decided the representation after affording opportunity to the petitioner and respondent no.4 after considering the representation of respondent no.4 the order was passed on 22.8.2006 for selection and appointment of Smt. Neetu Singh, who was at serial no.2, since the Smt. Anupama was not eligible for selection. She has also completed training and joined the institution and she is still working. However, without cancelling the earlier proceedings there was second advertisement and even in the second advertisement one Smt Vibha Sharma was having experience of 'Non Formal Education' hence she was in priority at serial no.1 in the selection list. In view of the fact, respondent no.4 has already been selected and that was not cancelled. The District Magistrate decided the representation in favour of respondent no.4 and there was no candidate claiming appointment on the basis of experience of 'Non Formal Education' when nine candidates appeared for selection in compliance of first advertisement. Apart from that now the government has stopped the selection and training of Shiksha Mitra in June, 2010 and admittedly the petitioner was not even sent for training. Hence in view of the fact, the present writ petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________