Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1995 of 2009 Petitioner :- Smt. Neelam Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Basic Edu. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Vikas Mishra,H.K. Asthana Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh,P.D. Tripathi Hon'ble Chandramauli Kumar Prasad,Chief Justice Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Writ petitioner – appellant, aggrieved by an order dated 12.11.2009
passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition 22628
of 2007, whereby the learned Single Judge has directed for
advertising the vacancy afresh for filling up the posts of Shiksha
Mitra, has preferred this appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
Writ petitioner – appellant and respondent No.6 besides other
persons were candidates for appointment to the post of Shiksha
Mitra. Respondent No.6 was appointed for the session 2005-06.
Writ petitioner – appellant challenged the same on the ground that
respondent No.6 did not annex the required domicile certificate
before the last date of submission of the application form.
The aforesaid plea found favour with the learned Single Judge and
he observed that respondent No.6 cannot be held to be entitled for
the benefit of consideration for renewal of appointment as Shiksha
Mitra, and accordingly he directed that fresh advertisement be
made.
Mr. H.K. Asthana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ
petitioner – appellant submits that once respondent No.6 was not
found entitled for the benefit of renewal, the learned Single Judge
ought to have directed for appointment of the writ petitioner –
appellant.
We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Asthana.
Appointment pertains to session 2005-06 and taking into account
the long period in between, the learned Single Judge instead of
directing for appointment of writ petitioner – appellant observed
that the vacancy be filled up afresh by making advertisement, in
which candidature of all persons including the writ petitioner –
appellant as also respondent No.6 be considered.
In our opinion, the exercise of discretion by the learned Single
Judge in the facts of the present case does not suffer from any
error, calling for interference in this appeal.
We do not find any merit in the appeal, and it is dismissed
accordingly.
Order Date :- 4.1.2010
VMA
(C.K. Prasad, C.J.)
(Pankaj Mithal, J.)