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. 1679/05 (S/S) Bhawan Singh Bisht vs State of Uttaranchal and others. Approved for reporting ____________________ Not approved for reporting Date of decision 01.03.2006 Initial of Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Civil Writ Petition No. 1679 of 2005(S/S) Bhwan Singh Bisht, S/o Sri Darshan Singh, R/o Village Niwal Gaon, P.O. Thati, Budha Kedar, Vikas Khand Bhilangana, Tehsil Ghansali, District Tehri Garhwal. …. Petitioner. Versus 1- State of Uttaranchal through District Education Officer, Tehri Garhwal. 2- Block Education Officer, Bhilangana Tehsil Ghansali District Tehri Garhwal. 3- Village Education Committee, Village Niwal Gaon Block Bhilangana, Tehsil Ghansali District Tehri Garhwal through its Chairman. 4- District Primary Education programme (DPEP).Additional District Education Officer Tehri Garhwal. …. Respondents. Sri Anil Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing counsel for respondents. HON’BLE RAJESH TANDON, J. 01.03.2006 Heard Sri Anil Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondents. Both the parties submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of at admission stage. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner of 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 Mirta 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 Village Niwal Gaun, P.O. Thati Bhudha, Tehsil Ghansali, District Tehri 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@ek0l0fo@9-1-89- 2000@fn0 27-1-2001 la[;k 134@ek0l0fo@2001 fn0 21-4-2001 l[;k 17@os0-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 vUrxZr 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: ^^7- f’k{kk fe=ks dk p;u xzke lHkk vFkok xzke iapk;r dh lhek ds vUnj gh fd;k tk;saxkA 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 u gksus dh n’kk esa xzke iapk;r esa miyC/k Lukrd vH;FkhZ ls rFkk ;fn xzke iapkpr esa Lukrd vH;FkhZ u gks rks fodkl[k.M Lrj ij miyC/k vH;FkhZ ¼ftUgksus vkosnu fd;k gS½ ls O;oLFkk dh tk;sxhA^^ 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|kky;ksa es f’k{kk fe= dh vko’;drk gks ml fo|ky; dh f’k{kk lfefr }kjk fodkl [k.M Lrj ij & vH;fFkZ;ksa esa ls vius fo|kky; ds fy;s f’k{kk fe=ksa dks vkaef=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;sxkA^^ The apprehension of the petitioner therefore, is not true. The petitioner shall be considered along with other candidates for the appointment of Shiksha Mirta. The respondents are, therefore, directed to proceed for the appointment of the Shiksha Mirta 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 Tandon, J ) 01-03-2006 Negi