HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Modification Application No. 2272 of 2006 IN Writ Petition No. 177 of 2006 (SS) Par Singh …… Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & others …… Respondents Dated: 4.3.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Application by the petitioner for modification of the order passed on 20.2.2006. The petitioner apprehends that the respondents may reject the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra. He prayed that the order may suitably modified and the respondents may be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra in village Sutol, District Chamoli. The application is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for his appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra in the Primary School of Village Panchayat, Sutol after obtaining recommendation from the Village Education Committee, Sutol, District Chamoli. Order passed on 20.2.2006 shall stand modified accordingly. Rajesh Tandon J. Dated: 4.3.2006 *Dhyani HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting.) (Chapter VIII Rule 32 (2)(b) Description of the case. W.P. No. 177/2006 (S/S) Par Singh S/o Sri Kheem Singh Vs. State of Uttaranchal Director as Education Dehradun. Approved for reporting. ______________________ Not approved for reporting Date of decision- 20.02.2006 Initial of Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Civil Writ Petition No. 177 of 2006 (S/S) Par Singh, S/o Sri Kheem Singh, R/o Village Sutol, Patti Nandak, Block Ghat, District Chamoli. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through Director of Education Uttaranchal Sashan, Dehradun. 2. Basic Education Officer District Chamoli. 3. Block Education Officer, District Chamoli. 4. Village Education Committee Sutol, Block Ghat, District Chamoli. …. Respondents. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing counsel for respondents. HON’BLE RAJESH TANDON, J. 20.02.2006. Heard Sri H.M. Raturi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Shiksha Mitra. The challenge of the petitioner is that in view of condition no. 3 framed on 16-1-2004 for the appointment of the Shiksha Mitra to the effect that in case the candidates are not available in the Gram Sabha, the candidate from Vikas Khand may also be considered, will cause prejudice to the petitioner in consideration of his appointment. The petitioner has submitted that he is a resident of Gram Sabha Sutol district Chamoli Garhwal and is an unemployed youth of the village. He has referred the Government Order dated 16-1-2004. The Government Order dated 16-1- 2004 is quoted below: “1- f’k{kk fe= dh O;oLFkk 'kklukns’k la[;k 472@ ek0l0fo0@ 9-1-89- 2000@ fn0 27-1-2001 la[;k 134@ek0l0fo0@2001 fn0 21-4-2001 l[;k 17@os-f’k0@2--4 fn0 16-1-2004 rFkk la[;k 230@33&1 1@2005&15&2004 fnukd19@4@2005 ,oa funs’kky; ds i=kd os0@13918&19@2005&06@fnukWd 16&7&2005 ,o i= la[;k csfld@14648&73@2005&06@fnukWd 20-7-2005 esa fufgr izkfo/kkuksa ds vUrZxr dh tk;sxhA^^ However the petitioner apprehends that in view of clause 7 of the advertisement dated 12-8-2005, the petitioner shall not be considered for appointment. It reads as under: “f’k{kk fe=ksa dk p;u xzke lHkk vFkok xzke iapk;r dh lhek ds vUnj gh fd;k tk;sxkA xzke lHkk@ xzke iapk;r esa izf’kf{kr vH;FkhZ u feyus ij fodkl [k.M ds mi;qDr vH;FkhZ ls] fodkl [k.M ds vUrZxr izf’kf{kr vH;FkhZ miyC/k u gksus dh n’kk esa xzke iapk;r esa miyC/k Lukrd vH;FkhZ ls rFkk ;fn xzke iapk;r esa Lukrd vH;FkhZ Hkh miyC/k u gks rks fodkl[k.M Lrj ij miyC/k vH;FkhZ ¼ftUgksus vkosnu fd;k gS½ ls O;oLFkk dh tks;xhA^^ Heard the standing counsel for the State. Standing counsel has submitted that when there is a clear provision that the candidates from the Gram Sabha shall be considered therefore, clause 7 with regard to out side the Gram Sabha is only the optional in case trained graduates are not available. So far as training part is concerned the same is also provided in rule 12. The same is quoted below: “12- ftl fo|ky;ksa esa f’k{kk fe= dh vko’;drk gks] ml fo|ky; dh f’k{kk lfefr }kjk fodkl [k.M Lrj ij & vF;kfFkZ;ksa esa ls vius fo|ky; ds fy;s f’k{kk fe=ksa dks vkeaf=r dj ,d ekg dk izf’k{k.k] ftldh O;oLFkk ftyk f’k{kk ,oa izf’k{k.k laLFkku }kjk dh tk;sxh 10 ekg ds fy;s :0 3430@& zifrekg ekuns; ij dk;Z fy;k tk;sxk A^^ The apprehension of the petitioner therefore, is not true. The petitioner shall be considered along with other candidates for the appointment of Shiksha Mitra. The respondents are, therefore, directed to proceed for the appointment of the Shiksha Mitra in view of the Government Order dated 16-1-2004. In view of aforesaid, the respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner in accordance with the Rules framed for appointment of Shiksha Mitra. Subject to aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tondon. J) 20-02-2006 Negi