JUDGMENT Vivek Kumar Birla, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has come up before this Court challenging the order dated 9.8.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Rampur, whereby the selection of the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra for Prathmik Vidyalaya Dabka, Vikash Khand Chamrauwa, District Rampur was set aside and it was directed that fresh selection for the same may be made in accordance with law. The petitioner has also come up challenging the order dated 25.9.2008 passed by the District Basic Education Officer including the claim of the respondent no. 6-Munesh Babu s/o Ram Bharose Lal for the purpose of such selection. 3. An advertisement was issued on 30.11.2007 for appointment to the post of Shiksha Mitra by the office of the Visheshagya District Basic Shiksha Adhikari inviting application. In the said advertisement it was specifically provided that the application may be filed before the Secretary/Principal of the Gram Shiksha Samiti by 10.12.2007 and it was particularly provided that the candidates must obtain receipt of the same. It was provided in the advertisement that in case the concerned Gram Shiksha Samiti refuses to accept the application form alongwith complaint and other documents, the application may be filed before the Visheshagya Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Rampur till 12.12.2007 and that thereafter no application shall be entertained. Clause 3 of the general instructions given in the advertisement provides that the Head Master of the concerned school in the meeting of the Gram Shiksha Samiti shall consider all such application and the proposal will be sent to Assistant Basic Education Officer by 15.12.2007 till 5 O'clock in the evening. Clause 3 of the general instructions given in the advertisement provides that the Head Master of the concerned school in the meeting of the Gram Shiksha Samiti shall consider all such application and the proposal will be sent to Assistant Basic Education Officer by 15.12.2007 till 5 O'clock in the evening. The relevant extract of the advertisement dated 30.11.2007 is quoted as under: - loZlk/kkj.k dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd loZ f'k{kk vfHk;ku ds vUrxZr o"kZ 2007&08 ds p;fur uohu ,oa xr o"kksZ ds vo'ks"k f'k{kk fe=ksa ds inksa gsrq izkFkfed fo|ky;ksa esa f'k{kk feJ dk p;u ekuns; ds vk/kkj ij xzke f'k{kk lfefr }kjk fd;k tkuk gSA lacaf/kr xzke iapk;r ds xzke f'k{kk lfefr ls lfpo@iz/kkuk/;kid dks viuk vkosnu i= fnukad 10-12-07 rd izkIr djkdj izkfIr jlhn vo'; izkIr dj ysA ;fn xzke f'k{kk lfefr }kjk fdlh vH;FkhZ viuk vkosnu i= ysus ls bUdkj fd;k tkrk gS rks lk{;ksa lfgr vH;FkhZ viuk vkosnu i= leLr izek.k i=ksa ds lkFk f'kdk;rh i= lfgr fo'ks"kK csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh] jkeiqj esa fnukad 12-12-07 rd IkzkIr djk nsA blds i'pkr fdlh Hkh vkosnu i= dks Lohdkj ugh fd;k tk;sxkA 3- Lkacf/kr fo|ky;ksa ds iz/kku v/;kid dks xzke f'k{kk lfefr dh cSBd esa izkIr lHkh vkosnu i=ksa dks lfEefyr djrs gq;s fu;ekuqlj vgZ vH;FkhZ ds p;u izLrko lacaf/kr lgk;d csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh dks 15-12-07 dks lka; 5-00 cts rd miyC/k djk;saxsA 4- lHkh lgk;d csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh vius {ks= ds izLrkoksa dks viuh Li"V vk[;k@laLrqfr lfgr Cykd Lrjh; p;u lfefr ds le{k 20-12-07 rd vuqeksnu djk;saxsA 4. Subsequently, the respondent no. 6 has filed a complaint claiming himself to be one of the applicants by means of Writ Petition No. 14020 of 2008 before this Court that his application has not been considered by the Committee and selection of the respondent is illegal. The said petition was disposed of by order dated 13.3.2008 directing the District Magistrate, Rampur to dispose of the representation of the petitioner. 5. Now, by order impugned herein dated 9.8.2008 the District Magistrate, Rampur set aside the selection of the petitioner on the ground that the last date of receiving of the application for Shiksha Mitra before the Secretary/Head Master was 10.12.2007 and in case the same is refused by the Gram Shiksha Samiti the last date of filing of such application in the office of District Basic Education Officer was 12.12.2007. Clearly, since the aforesaid resolution in favour of the petitioner was passed on 11.12.2007 and the last date of receiving of the application was 12.12.2007 till 5 O'clock in the evening, as such the resolution was absolutely illegal. He had further recommended that the enquiry be conducted against the Pradhan/Adhyaksh of the Gram Shiksha Samiti. 6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that although, last date of the filing of the application was 10.12.2007 only and the application could have been filed alongwith complaint in the office of the Visheshagya Basic Shiksha Adhikari without disputing the fact that the last date of application alongwith complaint could have been received by the office of the Visheshagya Shiksha Adhikari, Rampur upto 12.12.2007 till 5 O'clock in the evening, there was no bar in passing of the resolution by the Gram Shiksha Samiti before 12.12.2007 and the resolution passed on 11.12.2007 was perfectly justified and since there is no provision otherwise, the same cannot be taken as illegal or contrary to any provision of law. 7. He further submitted that he has filed a supplementary affidavit on 16.12.2012 wherein he had filed photocopy of the letter received indicates that the complaint application of the respondent was received in the office of the Basis Shiksha Adhikari on 14.12.2007 and as such his claim cannot be considered and he has no locus to challenge the selection of the petitioner. 8. By means of the supplementary affidavit dated 14.1.2013 he has filed receiving of the application of the respondent by the Head Master of the Primary Vidyalaya on 16.12.2007. This information was received by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Therefore, he submitted that the respondent no. 6 has no locus to challenge the selection of the petitioner and the order dated 25.9.2008 passed by the District Education Officer, Rampur directing the inclusion of his name for being considered to the post of Shiksha Mitra in fresh selection is absolutely illegal. 9. Learned Standing Counsel has supported the impugned order on the ground that admittedly the Gram Shiksha Samiti has passed the resolution on 11.12.2007 whereas the last date for receiving of application was 12.12.2007, therefore, the order dated 9.8.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Rampur is perfectly just and legal. 10. Sri P.S. Verma has appeared for the respondent no. 6. Learned Standing Counsel has supported the impugned order on the ground that admittedly the Gram Shiksha Samiti has passed the resolution on 11.12.2007 whereas the last date for receiving of application was 12.12.2007, therefore, the order dated 9.8.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Rampur is perfectly just and legal. 10. Sri P.S. Verma has appeared for the respondent no. 6. By filing supplementary counter affidavit he has tried to assert that he has made a complaint on 12.12.2007. Alongwith supplementary affidavit dated 17.12.2012 he has filed a receipt of the application, which was allegedly received on 12.12.2007. 11. The date of receiving is not clear in the photocopy annexed with the aforesaid supplementary counter affidavit. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the same that the last date of receipt of application in the office of the Visheshagya Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Rampur alongwith complaint was 12.12.2007 and the Clause 3 of the general instructions given in the advertisement clearly provides that "all application form (Sabhi Avedan Patra)" will be included for consideration by the Gram Shiksha Samiti in his meeting for consideration for appointment to the post of Shiksha Mitra. 13. Undisputed facts is that the resolution was passed on 11.12.2007. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no bar of such resolution before 12.12.2007 therefore, is without substance and is hereby rejected. 14. In such view of the matter no interference is warranted in the order impugned herein dated 9.8.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Rampur. In so far as the order dated 25.9.2008 directing inclusion of the name of the respondent no. 6 for the purpose of considering his claim for such appointment is concerned, the documents annexed with the writ petition as well as by way of supplementary counter affidavit filed by the petitioner prima facie indicates that the application and the complaint, if any, were not filed by 12.12.2007 by the respondent no. 6. However, this fact, which is to be verified by the authority concerned before his name is included in the fresh selection. 15. Learned Standing Counsel submits that after the ban on fresh recruitment to the post of Shiksha Mitra w.e.f. 1.4.2010 no fresh selection can take place. 16. A reference may be made to a decision of Hon'ble Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 61 of 2014 (Smt. Usha Singh Vs. 15. Learned Standing Counsel submits that after the ban on fresh recruitment to the post of Shiksha Mitra w.e.f. 1.4.2010 no fresh selection can take place. 16. A reference may be made to a decision of Hon'ble Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 61 of 2014 (Smt. Usha Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others), wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench has provided that the ban of fresh recruitment w.e.f. 1.4.2010 will not come in the way of the appointment of the appellant as the appellant has applied for the post in pursuance of the advertisement dated 27.10.2005. 17. In the present case also the advertisement was issued on 30.11.2007 and by means of the impugned order direction to fresh selection was issued, which was stayed by this Court by order dated 5.11.2008. 18. In such view of the matter and the law laid down by Hon'ble Division Bench there is no legal impediment in continuing that the selection proceedings in pursuance to the advertisement dated 30.11.2007 on the basis of the applications already duly receiving before the last date i.e. 12.12.2007. Before proceeding further, it is made clear that the receipt of application of the respondent no. 6 shall be verified by the respondent no. 3-District Magistrate, Rampur. 19. Since seven years have elapsed, it would be appropriate that the entire exercise shall be done preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the respondent no. 3. 20. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands dismissed.