JUDGMENT Hon’ble Irshad Ali, J.—The present special appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge dated 25.4.2008 in Writ Petition No. 21231 of 2008 (Anil Kumar Kushwaha v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others). 2. On perusal of the records of the present special appeal, it transpires that the State Government had issued a G.O. on 10.10.2005 whereby guidelines were framed for selection and appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra. The G.O referred to hereinabove laid down certain conditions for making selection and appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra. 3. In pursuance to an advertisement, applications were invited for selection and appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra for Primary School, Kaithi-II, District Sonebhadra. In pursuance to the advertisement issued, several candidates applied including the appellant/petitioner and respondent No. 5. A meeting of Gram Sabha Samiti, Gram Panchayat, Nipraj, Kaithi-II, District Sonebhadra was held on 15.11.2005. A list of selected candidates as per the proposal made by the Gram Sabha Samiti, Gram Panchayat, Nipraj, Kaithi-II, District Sonebhadra was finalised wherein the petitioner was placed at serial No. 1 and recommendation was made for his appointment. 4. It appears that after selection of the appellant/petitioner, a complaint was lodged by one Sri Yogendra Nath Pandey and upon inquiry on his complaint, a report was submitted on 14.6.2006 wherein the petitioner was found to be related to Gram Pradhan. Thus, his claim was rejected and on his place, respondent No. 5 was declared selected in the said selection. The select list was issued on 7.9.2007. The petitioner aggreived by the select list dated 7.9.2007 filed writ petition No. 48104 of 2007 which was disposed of by this Court with the direction to District Level Committee to pass appropriate reasoned order on the representation of the petitioner after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the other parties. 5. District Magistrate after affording fullest opportunity to the parties passed an order on 24.1.2008 whereby the appointment of respondent No. 5 was held to be valid selection and appointment of the appellant/petitioner was declared to be illegal on the ground that he was in close relation to the Gram Pradhan of the concerned village. 5. District Magistrate after affording fullest opportunity to the parties passed an order on 24.1.2008 whereby the appointment of respondent No. 5 was held to be valid selection and appointment of the appellant/petitioner was declared to be illegal on the ground that he was in close relation to the Gram Pradhan of the concerned village. The said order was assailed in the writ petition and after looking to the facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge has recorded cogent reasons and finding in not accepting the claim set up by the appellant/petitioner. 6. We have also gone through the pleadings of the appeal as well as writ petition and perused the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. Learned Single Judge on perusal of material on record has categorically held that the selection and appointment of the appellant/petitioner was barred by embargo levelled under the G.O. issued by the State Government. Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the District Magistrate dated 24.1.2008 as well as in the impugned judgment and order dated 25.4.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. In view of the above, we do not warrant any interference in the finding returned by the learned Single Judge as the same does not suffer from any infirmity and illegality. 9. Accordingly, the special appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.