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. WPSS No. 221/2006 Km. Dinu Bhandari Vs State of Uttaranchal Director of Uttaranchal Education Approved for reporting. Not approved for reporting Date of decision 25.2.2006 Initial of Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. Civil Writ Petition No. 221 of 2006(S/S) Km. Dinu Bhandari, D/o Sri Harsh Singh, R/o Village Giwaiepani Gram Sabha Mangrukhal, District Almora ...... Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through Director of Education(Basic) Govt. of Uttaranchal at Dehradun. 2. Upper Zila Shiksha Adhikari (Basic) District Almora. 3. Block Education Officer, Development Block. ....Respondents. Sri B.D. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing counsel for respondents. HON’BLE RAJESH TANDON.J. 25.02.2006 Heard Sri B.D. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondents. Both the parties have submitted that the petition may be disposed of at the admission stage. 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 in the Primary School Giwaiapani, Gram, Panchayat Mangrukhal, Development Block Syelday, district Almora. 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 she is a resident of Gram Sabha Mangrukhal Development Block Syelday, district Almora and is an unemployed youth of the village. 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 Lka[;k 134@ek0l0fo0@2001 fn0 21.4.2001 la[;k 17@os0f”k0@2..4 fn0 16.1.2004 rFkk la[;k 230@33&1 1@2005&15&2004 fnukad 19@4@2005 ,oa funs”kky; ds i=kd os0@13918&19@2005&06@fnukad 16&7&2005 ,oa i= la[;k csfld@14648@73@2005&06@fnukad 20.7.2005 esa fufgr izkfo/kkuksa ds vUrxZr dh Tkk;sxhA” The grievance of the petitioner that respondents no. 2 and 3 have recommended the name of Sri Dwrika Prasad who is resident of village Lalnagri Gram Panchayat Deghat. In view of the condition laid down in the advertisement a person who is permanent resident of another Gram Panchayat can not be appointed in Primary School situated in another Gram Panchayat. However the petitioner apprehends that in view of clause 9 of the advertisement dated 17-8-2005, the petitioner shall not be considered for appointment. It reads as under:- “7] f”k{kk fe=ksa dk p;u xzke lHkk vFkok xzke Ikapk;r dh lhek ds vUnj gh fd;k tk;sxkA xzkEk LkHkk@Xkzke iapk;r esa izf”kf{kr vH;FkhZ u feyus ij fodkl [k.M ds mi;qDr vH;FkhZ ls] fodkl [k.M ds vUrxZr izf”kf{kr vH;FkhZ miyC/k u gksus dh n”kk esa xzke Ikapk;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 gS ½ 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 9 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 & vH;fFkZ;ks esa ls vius fo?kky; 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 LkaLFkku )kjk dh tk;sxh 10 ekg ds fy;s :0 3430@& izfrekg ekuns; ij dk;Z fy;k tk;sxkA” The apprehension of the petitioner therefore, is not well founded. The petitioner shall be considered along with other candidates for the appointment of Shiksha Mitra. In view of aforesaid, the respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner in accordance with the Rules framed for the appointment of Shiksha Mitra after taking into consideration the Government Order dated 16.01.2004. Subject to aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tondon. J) 25.02.2006 Negi