Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 47789 of 2010 Petitioner :- Smt. Sushma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- R. B. Yadav Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C.,G. S. Maurya,Mahesh Narain Singh Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
Petitioner has filed present writ petition, questioning the validity of
decision dated 03.06.2010 taken by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur,
wherein representation made by the petitioner has been rejected.
Earlier, petitioner had approached this Court through writ petition
No.21087 of 2010, complaining that selection under Sarv Shiksha
Abhiyan for the post of Shikshamitra had taken place in December,
2008, wherein, in all four candidates had applied. Petitioner’s
complaint before this Court was that application-form of Pankaj Kumar
was incomplete, as such he could not have been offered appointment.
This Court after hearing both the parties, gave liberty to the petitioner
to make a representation ventilating all her grievances before the
District Magistrate concerned within two weeks along with certified
copy of the said order, and the the District Magistrate was directed to
consider and decide the same by means of a reasoned speaking
order, after affording opportunity of hearing to respondent No. 6,
preferably within six weeks from the date the representation so filed.
Thereafter respective claims have been examined, and it has been
found that merit status of Pankaj Kumar was superior. This fact has
been found to be true that along with applicatin form of Pankaj Kumar
domicile certificate was not filed and this has also come on record that
an affidavit was filed clearly mentioning therein that it was still under
preparation and the moment it was received, it would be deposited,
and accordingly, same was deposited on 18.01.2009. Petitioner has
also been complaining that Pankaj Kumar was not domicile of the
place where institution was situated, and then on enquiry, it has been
found that he is domicile of the place in question and domicile
certificate has also been issued in this regard. Keeping in mind all
these facts and circumstances that domicile certificate was under
preparation and was submitted subsequently. In such a situation and
in this background, once meritorious candidate has been offered
appointment, then to say that merely because domicile certificate had
not been filed along with the application, the candidature of Pankaj
Kumar cannot be non-suited.
Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.8.2010
SRY