IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1796 (SS) OF 2005 Km. Pushpa Arya, D/o late Sher Ram Arya, R/o Village Bheta Baroli, P.O. Dhyari, (Block Dauladevi) Tehsil Bhanoli, District- Almora. ……….Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through Secretary, Basic Education, Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 2. Additional District Education Officer (Basic), Almora. 3. Block Education Officer/Khand Shiksha Adhikari, Block Dhaula Devi, Tehsil Bhanoli, Distridt Almora. 4. Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Almora. 5. Principle, D.I.E.T. (District Institute of Educational Training) District Almora. 6. Block Pramukh, Black Dauladevi, District Almora. 7. Sri Mahipal Arya, S/o Sri Jagat Ram, R/o Bheta Baroli, P.O. Dhyari, Tehsil Bhanoli, District Almora. 8. Sri Devendra Prasad, S/o Sri Mahendra Prasad, R/o Bheta Baroli, P.O. Dhyari, Tehsil Bhanoli, District Almora. ………….Respondents. Sri K.S. Bora, Advocate for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 5. Dated: 28.03.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to join as Shiksha Mitra form her village/Gram Sabha and to allow her training in response to the advertisement dated 17.08.2005 published by the respondent 2 in the daily newspaper Dainik Jagran for appointment of Shiksha Mitra for her village/Gram Sabha for the year, 2005- 2006. 2. Briefly stated, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 17th August, 2005, the petitioner applied for the post of Shiksha Mitra on 26th August, 2005. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has secured highest marks and the respondents no. 7 and 8 have secured lesser marks than the petitioner, but the petitioner has not been selected. 4. The petitioner apprehends that she has been discriminated being a female otherwise the petitioner, who secured higher marks than the persons selected i.e. respondents no. 7 and 8, would have been selected. 5. The petitioner has already represented to the authority concerned on 19.10.2005 and 20.10.2005 but of no avail. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Standing Counsel, where details of marks obtained by various candidates have been given in paragraph 4. Paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit is quoted below:- “4. That the contents of para 2 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated. The petitioner was not placed on top in the merit list. In this regard the respondents wants to submit that the selected candidates and their marks in merit list is given below:- Name Marks obtained Serial No. (Rank) 1. Sri Lal Singh Bhaisora 53.43 1 2. Sri Deewan Singh Bhaisora 44.24 2 3. Smt. Bhagirathi 32.03 3 4. Km. Pushpa Arya (Petitioner) 30.88 4 5. Sri Mahipal Arya 29.08 5 6. Km. Nandi Arya 28.86 6 7. Sri Devendra Prasad 28.61 7 8. Km. Babeeta 26.65 8 3 It is further submitted that the petitioner find place in the merit list on the serial no. 4 she obtained the 30.88 marks in the merit list. In this connection a true copy of the Government Order no. 134/Ma.Sa.Vi/2001 Dehradun dated 21/4/2001 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. C.A.-1 to this affidavit. It is also submitted that no arbitrary action have been made by the respondents, however, as per the Government Order, the pose was reserved for Schedueld Caste male candidate for the selection of the Shiksha Mitra on this very ground the candidature of the petitioner was not considered.” 7. As will appear from the list, Sri Mahipal Arya and Sri Devendra Prasad are at Serial No. 5 and 7, whereas the petitioner finds place at Serial No. 4. Thus in view of the aforesaid chart, there is no occasion to deprive the petitioner from the appointment as Shiksha Mitra for which she is already qualified. 8. Consequently, a writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondent no. 3 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner dated 19.10.2005 and 20.10.2005 (Annexure No. 4 and 5 to the writ petition respectively) within a period of one month from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order in the light of the aforesaid facts and the chart given in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the Standing Counsel regarding the marks secured by various candidates. 9. Writ petition, therefore, is allowed. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 28.03.2006 Rathour