Allahabad High Court
Tahsildar Yadav vs Experts, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, ... on 6 September, 2018
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25444 of 2001
Petitioner :- Tahsildar Yadav
Respondent :- Experts, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Azamgarh & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Rai, H.P. Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., A.K. Pandey, B.S.Rathore, G.C. Singh
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Sri H.P. Gupta, Advocate, for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
2. Appointment of respondent-5 as Shiksha Mitra has been challenged on the ground that he secured lower marks than petitioner but has been given preference simply because he was B.Ed. though preferential qualification is applicable only when marks secured by candidates are equal.
3. However, I find no force in the submission for the reason that it is always the language of relevant provision providing preferential qualification as to whether preference is to be given to the exclusion of others or it is applicable when the two persons are equal. This is what has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Daya Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 2007 (5) ADJ 359, wherein it was held as under:
"In the event, the rule provides a mere preference, it will mean that the candidates concerned will have to have equal marks to begin with and then one amongst so many, will be given a preference. As against that, if there is an en bloc priority given to a category, that will have to be preferred irrespective of the marks obtained."
4. In the present case, Clause-4 of Government Order dated 01.07.2000 provides for qualification including preferential qualification and reads as under:
^^4- ^f'k{kk fe= dh vgZrk;sa%
f'k{kk fe= ¼iq:"[email protected]½ dh U;wure 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk mRrj izns'k ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn }kjk lapkfyr b.VjehfM,V ijh{kk mRrh.kZ vFkok jkT; ljdkj }kjk blds led{k ekU;rk izkIr dksbZ vU; vgZrk gksxh fdUrq izfrca/k ;g gS fd izns'k esa lapkfyr ekU;rk izkIr fo'ofo|ky;ksa rFkk jkT; ljdkj }kjk lapkfyr egkfo|ky;[email protected]'k{k.k egkfo|ky;ksa ls laLFkkxr Nk= ds :i esa ch0,[email protected],y0Vh0 mRrh.kZ vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vf/kekU;rk iznku dh tk;sxhA f'k{kk fe= dh U;wure vk;q p;u o"kZ dhs 1 tqykbZ dks 18 o"kZ o vf/kdre 30 o"kZ gksxhA^^ (Emphasis added)
"4. Qualifications for Shiksha Mitra
The minimum educational qualification for Shiksha Mitra (Male/Female) shall be a pass in Intermediate examination conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Board of High school and Intermediate Education or any other qualification recognized to be equivalent thereto by the state government; however, subject to a restriction that preference shall be given to the candidates having passed B.Ed./ L.T. as regular students from the recognized universities of the state and degree colleges/ training degree colleges run by the state government. The minimum and maximum age limit for Shiksha Mitra shall as on 1st July of the selection year be 18 years and 30 years respectively."
5. The minimum qualification prescribed as per aforesaid Clause is Intermediate or equivalent examination passed, but it further provides that a candidate, who has passed an Institutional B.Ed./L.T., shall be given preference. In the present case, the preferential qualification is admittedly to the exclusion of other candidates having lower educational qualification. I, therefore, do not find any manifest error in the selection and appointment of respondent-5 as Shiksha Mitra.
6. The writ petition lacks merits. Dismissed.
Dt. 06.09.2018
PS
