Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Mandhata Sharma aggrieved by the order dated 27.6.2011 passed by District Magistrate, Budaun has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the said order and has also sought a mandamus directing respondent No. 3 to permit the petitioner to work as Block Coordinator, Block Asafpur, District Badaun.
(2.) I have heard Sri Somesh Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.C.Chaturvedi, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Sri C.S.Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as the "official respondent"). None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 5. Office report dated 5.9.2011 with respect to service on respondent No. 5 has been perused. RPAD sent to respondent No. 5 has neither returned undelivered nor acknowledgement received back. The petitioner has also filed an affidavit stating that he tried to serve respondent No. 5 personally but he refused. Under the Rules, service on respondent No. 5 is deemed sufficient. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, I proceed to decide the matter finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court. An advertisement was issued by the official respondents vide advertisement No. Sa.Bha.Mi/1227/2010-11 dated 11.8.2010 for appointment of 4 (four) District Coordinator and 18 (eighteen) Block Coordinator on contract basis for a period of 11 (eleven) months inviting applications from eligible persons. The candidates were required to mention clearly on the envelope, the post, district and name of the Block for which they are applying. The selection was to be made by Block Public Education Committee. The petitioner was interviewed by the said Committee but not appointed for Block Asafpur. The respondent No. 5 Sri Pal was appointed hence the petitioner filed writ petition No. 26075 of 2011, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 10.5.2011 directing Collector to look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order. Pursuant thereto the Collector passed the impugned order rejecting representation of the petitioner observing that Selection Committee having found that petitioner lacked knowledge of computer therefore his candidature was not considered. The relevant part of the order passed by Collector is reproduced as under : JUDGEMENT_3032_UPLBEC4_2011Image1.jpg Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner possessed computer awareness certificate issued by Laxmi Narayan Gramo Udyog Development Society, Bisauli registered with U.P. Administration, Government of U.P. and respondent No. 5, who has been selected also possessed the same certificate of the same institute but he has been appointed while the petitioner has been rejected allegedly only on the ground that he lacked knowledge of computer, which shows that proceedings conducted by the respondents are patently illegal.
(3.) CONSIDERING the above submission, this Court issued an order on 23.8.2011 directing the respondents No. 1 to 4 to file reply stating in what manner computer knowledge of candidates was examined by Selection Committee and they were also directed to produce relevant record before this Court. The respondents, pursuant to the said order, appeared with record and had also filed a counter affidavit sworn by Sri Chandra Kant, Chief Development Officer, Badaun. It says that advertisement provides that candidates must possess knowledge of computer operation. Pursuant to the advertisement, 104 applications were received and after scrutiny 79 candidates were found eligible which included the petitioner. The interview letters were issued to the eligible candidates but only 64 actually appeared for interview on 12.1.2011. The selection was held by a Committee consisting of Chief Development Officer, Badaun as Chairman. Sri Rajendra Pal, Senior Lecturer, District Institute of Education and Training, Badaun and Secretary, District Public Education Committee, Badaun i.e. District Basic Education as members. As a Special invitee, District Informatics Officer was also present at the time of interview. All the candidates were awarded marks separately by the Committee members (District Informatics Officer excluded) and thereafter average marking for each candidate was calculated. Based thereon, 18 persons were selected and the name of the petitioner was kept in waiting list for Block Asafpur. A select list as well as waiting list prepared by the Committee has been placed on record as Annexure C.A.5 which also contains an endorsement said to have been prepared by Dr. O.P.Rai, Secretary, District Public Education Committee wherein para 4 he said that such candidates who lacked computer knowledge after being examined by District Informatics Officer, NCC were not placed in the merit list. The said list was approved by District Magistrate and thereafter appointments were made. The record of entire selection was also produced for perusal of this Court. In the entire record there was no document to show anything rejecting any candidate on the basis of his knowledge about computer operations. This fact may have been taken into consideration by the members of Selection Committee while awarding marks given to each candidate as is evident from the original record but it is clear that the entire record contains nothing to disclose anything about assessment of a candidate regarding his knowledge of computer operations. ;