Shailesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. & Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 3840 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 41904 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Shailesh Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh,Mohd. Sher Ali
 

 
Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The relief claimed in this petition is for a mandate to appoint the petitioner on the post of Prerak in Badahra Devi Charan, Block Farenda, District Maharajganj and for taking decision on his complaint.

It is pleaded that the petitioner had applied for engagement as Prerak and the Village Shiksha Samiti prepared a merit list where the name of the petitioner was placed at serial no. 1 but the officials with the connivance of the respondent no. 7 manipulated the merit list and on the basis of forged certificate declared respondent no. 7 as selected. Upon coming to know about the forgery, he submitted a complaint to the District Magistrate claiming to be the most qualified. Upon the direction of the Secretary, Zila Lok Shiksha Samiti, the Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari conducted an enquiry and submitted a report that the selection was not fair whereafter explanation was called from the Block Development Officer and the Principal of the Primary Vidhyalaya but when no action was forthcoming, another complaint was made whereupon the Block Development Officer submitted his report stating that the entire papers relating to the selection are missing but when no action was forthcoming he made an application under the Right to Information Act whereupon copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner and till date neither any selection has been made nor action taken on the complaint of the petitioner and thus the present petition.

On the own showing of the petitioner as stated in paragraph 14, no selection has yet been made. Further, the authorities are examining the matter. Neither the petitioner has brought on record the advertisement in pursuance of which he applied and as such the court is unaware about the criteria for selection and there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was ever selected at serial no. 1.

For all these reasons, the Court is not inclined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.

Order Date :- 29.8.2012

AK