Court No. - 25 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35609 of 2010 Petitioner :- Smt. Reena Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- V.C. Goel Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Heard Shri V.C. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel for the respondents.
Aggrieved by the order dated 26.12.2009 passed by District Magistrate,
Chitrakoot, rejecting representation of the petitioner regarding appointment to
the post of ‘Shikshamitra’, present writ petition has been filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marriage of the
petitioner was solemnized with Sri Manoj Kumar resident of village Suhel on
31.12.2007 and in this regard he refers to her averments contained in para 5 of
the writ petition and submits that the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot has erred
in law by holding that the petitioner’s marriage was solemnized with Shri
Manoj Kumar on 07.05.2009. Since on this only ground the petitioner’s
representation has been rejected by the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot,
therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
However, I find no error in the impugned order warranting any interference
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reasons discussed below.
The advertisement for appointment on the post of ‘Shiksha Mitra’ in Primary
Schools Chillapurwa, Barachhi and Chandaha in Gram Panchaayat Suhel was
made on 3.11.2008. The petitioner also applied for the said post but did not
append the certificate of residence (Domicile Certificate) regarding her
residence in Gram Panchayat Suhel along with her application till the last date
of submission of the application form. Consequently, the Selection Committee
recommended names of other candidates in order of merit and the petitioner’s
name was not recommended. Aggrieved, petitioner approached this court by
filing a writ petition no.39309 of 2009 (Smt. Reena Devi Vs. State of U.P. &
Others), which was finally disposed of on 03.08.2009, directing the District
Magistrate, Chitrakoot to consider petitioner’s representation and pass a
reasoned order.
It appears from record that the matter was heard by the District Magistrate.
Since no certificate of residence was submitted by the petitioner and also for
the reasons assigned by Gram Pradhan of the village concerned that the
petitioner’s marriage was solemnized on 7.5.2009, therefore, the certificate of
residence in October 2008 could not have been issued to the petitioner, the
District Magistrate after having considered the above factual aspects, which
could not said to be perverse or incorrect by placing any cogent material
before him, has passed the impugned order. Before this court also, learned
counsel for the petitioner except his averment made in para 5 of the writ
petition, could not place any material to show that the findings of the District
Magistrate that the petitioner was married on 7.5.2009 with Shri Manoj
Kumar in village Suhel is perverse or contrary to materials on record
warranting any interference. He only refers to his bare averment contained in
para 5 of the writ petition, which he could not substantiate by placing any
cogent reason or material on record. I find that having considered the
document and statement given by the Gram Pradhan concerned, the District
Magistrate has recorded a finding of fact about the marriage of the petitioner
with Shri Manoj Kumar i.e. after the date of advertisement. It is not disputed
that one of the condition for eligibility for appointment to the post of ‘Shiksha
Mitra’ is that the incumbent must be resident of concerned Village Gram
Panchayat and the petitioner has not fulfilled the same, was not liable to be
appointed on the said post. This finding of fact cannot be disturbed. I find no
reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.8.2010
pks