Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3170 (ALL)

Urmila v. State of U. P.

2014-10-16

ABHINAVA UPADHYA

body2014
JUDGMENT The petitioner applied for engagement as Shiksha Mitra in Basic School, Gon Ghat, Tehsil Gola, District Gorakhpur. Pursuant to an advertisement, the petitioner was selected upon quality point marks and was sent for thirty days' training, which she has successfully completed and thereafter appointed in the aforesaid school by the order of Basic Education Officer on 1.4.2009. Petitioner continued as such till 2011. When the Basic Education Officer entertaining a complaint by one Km. Reena that the petitioner is not a domicile of the village where she has sought appointment, her appointment has been cancelled by the Basic Education Officer vide its order dated 20.1.2011. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had filed her caste certificate as well as domicile certificate showing her native village to be Gon Ghat. The said domicile certificate has been issued by an authority competent to do so and the same has not been cancelled by it. Without any notice to the petitioner her engagement as Shiksha Mitra has been cancelled unilaterally by the order impugned. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in all her certificates, petitioner has shown herself to be married. It is claimed that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized in 1991 and since her marriage she and her husband has been staying in Gon Ghat with the father of the petitioner and helping him in farming. However, no material has been filed to indicate that the husband of the petitioner also resides in the same village with her and her father. That apart the Basic Education Officer appears to have passed the aforesaid order of cancellation of appointment of the petitioner on the premise that upon a report being called by the S.D.M. Gola, which found that the petitioner is married to Muneem Ji, who is the resident of Mau and upon such a report her appointment has been cancelled. While according to the learned counsel for the petitioner neither the report was served upon the petitioner nor any opportunity was given as such, such a report cannot be relied upon . It is further submitted that the report has not even been filed along with the counter affidavit filed by the Basic Education Officer. While according to the learned counsel for the petitioner neither the report was served upon the petitioner nor any opportunity was given as such, such a report cannot be relied upon . It is further submitted that the report has not even been filed along with the counter affidavit filed by the Basic Education Officer. It is further argued that action has been taken against the petitioner upon a material, which was never disclosed to the petitioner, as such action of the authority concerned is illegal and is unsustainable in law. 4. I have heard the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. None has appeared for the Basic Education Officer, although counter affidavit has been filed. It is not disputed that the petitioner was selected as a married candidate from village Gon Ghat, in all her certificates filed she has shown herself as married. It is claimed that she has married her husband since 1991 although her appointment is of 2009. She is also in possession of valid domicile certificate which till date has not been cancelled by the Competent authority so far. Her appointment has also been cancelled relying upon a report by the S.D.M. which she was never confronted with nor the same has been filed before this Court. As such, it appears that the matter requires further scrutiny. Therefore, the District Magistrate, who is the chairman of the appointment Committee of Shiksha Mitra may look into the matter and pass appropriate orders thereon. He may also inquire whether in fact husband of the petitioner actually resides in Gon Ghat or not, or the petitioner is living separately from her husband with her father? Considering this aspect of the matter a fresh order may be passed with regard to continuation of the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra in respect of the order impugned dated 20.1.2011, however this order will not give permission to petitioner to join the post unless the District Magistrate decides the case in her favour. The petitioner may file her representation before the District Magistrate within one month and the District Magistrate will take final decision on the same within a period of four months thereafter. With the aforaesaid observation/directions, the writ petition is disposed of.