Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1343 (ALL)

Jagveer Singh v. State of U. P.

2023-05-17

SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

body2023
JUDGMENT : SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Bimal Prasad and Sri Ajai Singh, both the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Grijesh Tripathi, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 to 4 and Sri Vishesh Rajvanshi, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. 2. Present petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “(a) issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 9.11.2011 passed by the Basic Education Officer, Etah (Respondent No. 3). (ia) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 30.11.2013 passed by respondents No. 3 contained as Annexure 13 to the writ petition.” 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been shortlisted for providing appointment over the post of Shiksha Mitra against the advertisement notification issued on dated 18.12.2003 for Primary School, Tissauri and Primary School, Puranjala, being qualified under the eligibility criteria as provided in the notification dated 18.12.2003. The petitioner after having qualitative points 46.26 reflected at the final list prepared wherein the petitioner was second last as per the qualitative points allocated against each and every aspirant who preferred the selection over the post of Shiksha Mitra. Top 3 candidates could not be offered appointment since the candidature of the same has been rejected on several other grounds, precisely in the said certificate which has been appended at the time of seeking appointment were found forged and fictitious and one of the candidates were also denied on the ground of overage. 4. Petitioner alongwith respondent No. 5 was offered appointment over the vacant post of Shiksha Mitra at primary school Tissauri and Primary School, Puranjala, District Etah. Without considering the choice of posting the respondent No. 5 has been posted at Primary School, Puranjala and the petitioner was posted at Primary School, Tissauri vide order dated 23.4.2005. 5. Some intermediary incidence took place in shape of stoppage of the honorarium which was extended in favour of the respondent No. 5 way back in the year 2011. Without considering the choice of posting the respondent No. 5 has been posted at Primary School, Puranjala and the petitioner was posted at Primary School, Tissauri vide order dated 23.4.2005. 5. Some intermediary incidence took place in shape of stoppage of the honorarium which was extended in favour of the respondent No. 5 way back in the year 2011. Being aggrieved with the legitimate claim of receiving honorarium over the post of Shiksha Mitra, respondent No. 5 preferred Writ A No. 58363 of 2011 (Dharmendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others) and the same was disposed of at the admission stage by way of issuing direction to competent authority to decide the representation vide order dated 18.10.2011. On the fine scrutiny of the representation as preferred by the respondent No. 5 it has been transpired before respondent that the post which has been occupied by respondent No. 5 was specified only for the female candidate but under some confusion, the respondent No. 5 has been posted over the same. Having the higher marks which has been determined at the time of providing appointment in favour of respondent No. 5 as well as the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 was having total qualitative points of 46.86 whereas the petitioner was having 46.26 and now it is the respondent No. 5 who has to be posted in place of the petitioner which culminated into virtually termination of the services of the petitioner. 6. Being aggrieved with the above mentioned action initiated by the responding authorities, petitioner preferred the instant writ petition for challenging the order dated 9.11.2012 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Etah. At the admission stage the interference has been drawn by this Court by way of issuing interim protection in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 6.1.2012. It is also mentioned by learned counsel for the petitioner that against interim order passed by this Court in the instant matter the Intra Court Appeal has been preferred by the State respondents but the same has been dismissed vide judgment dated 2.3.2012. During pendency of the instant petition, the same was dismissed in default vide order dated 26.11.2013 and the same has been restored on dated 11.4.2014. 7. During pendency of the instant petition, the same was dismissed in default vide order dated 26.11.2013 and the same has been restored on dated 11.4.2014. 7. During pendency of the dismissal to restoration of the instant petition a separate order have been passed on 30.11.2013 through which the respondent No. 5 was directed to be posted over the place of posting where the petitioner was rendering his services under the strength of the interim order passed by this Court. After restoration of the instant petition, the interim order as granted by this Court was never ever restored/extended by any specific orders passed by any of the co-ordinate Bench and as such the petitioner was out of services since 30.11.2013. Order dated 30.11.2013 has also been challenged by way of preferring the amendment as allowed by this Court. 8. During pendency of the present petition, learned counsel for the petitioner preferred supplementary-affidavit through which a specific Government order dated 19.11.2001 has been brought on record, extract of the same is quoted herein-below: 9. By bare perusal of the Government order dated 19.11.2001, it is crystal clear that in case of no female candidate is available, the post of Shiksha Mitra can be filled up with the general candidate and the same has already been held by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ A No. 45639 of 2012 (Mukesh Chandra v. State of U.P. and others). 10. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, in the light of the Government order dated 19.11.2001, there is hardly any occasion available before the responding authority to cease the services of the petitioner only for accommodating the respondent No. 5. More so without disturbing respondent No. 5, the services of the petitioner may be utilized for the post for which the appointment has been offered to him. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, order dated 9.11.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. 11. Writ petition stands allowed accordingly. 12. However, it is made clear, that the responding authority will be at liberty to take further action for accommodation of respondent No. 5 in the light of the Government order dated 19.11.2001.