- (1.) THE present special has been filed against the judgment and order dated 6th January 2011 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by the present Appellant has been dismissed.
(2.) IT appears that selection for the post of Shiksha Mitra in Prathmic Vidyalaya, Azampur, was undertaken in which one Ms. Rubi Rani Sharma daughter of Nathu Ram Sharma was selected. However, the Appellant had obtained higher marks. It appears that taking cognizance of the order dated 18.3.2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 14188 of 2008 filed by one Suresh Kumar, who was an unsuccessful candidate, the District Magistrate entertained his representation and vide order dated 19.9.2008 had held that the selection of Ms. Rubi Rani Sharma was not proper and in her place Mrs. Snehlata wife of Lalit Kumar, who had obtained higher marks ought to have been selected. However, the representation of Suresh Kumar was rejected. In the order dated 19.9.2008, there is no direction by the District Magistrate that the present Appellant should have been appointed. Taking advantage of the order dated 19.9.2008, the present Appellant almost after 2 years i.e. on 5th July 2010 preferred a representation before the District Magistrate seeking enforcement of his earlier order dated 19/20.08.2008 and for giving appointment of Shiksha Mitra to her. In the said representation, a statement has been made that she has made several representations in this connection earlier, though neither any date nor any particulars of making of such representations nor any copy of the same has been enclosed along with the representation dated 5.7.2010. Further, in the writ petition preferred by the Appellant, no date has been given by the Appellant that she had made the representation prior to 5.7.2010 nor any copy of the earlier representations have been enclosed. The learned single Judge taking note of the aforesaid fact had rejected the writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay by relying upon the following decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. 1. K.B. Lamiya Shetty and Ors. v. State of Mysore and Ors., AIR 1967 SC 993; 2. Gyan Singh v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, 1980 SC 1894; and Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan : 2006 (4) SCC 322. 3. We have heard Sri H.M. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Appellant, learned standing counsel representing Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4, Sri D.D. Chauhan representing Respondent No. 5 and Sri D.P. Singh, representing Respondent No. 3 and have perused the impugned judgment and order dated 6.1.2011 passed by the learned single Judge giving rise to the present appeal, the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and the documents filed along with it.
(3.) SRI H.M. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that in view of the order dated 19.9.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, the Appellant was entitled for being appointed on the post of Shiksha Mitra and she had represented the matter before the authorities immediately thereafter as would be seen from the last representation dated 5.7.2010 in which a specific mention has been made that she has earlier also made representations but, no remedial measures had been taken. We have perused the representation dated 5.7.2010 filed along with the memo of appeal and find that in paragraph 2 of the said representation only this much has been stated. 2 - ;g fd bl flyflys esa iwoZ esa Hkh izk - izrz fn;s fdUrq lqwuokbZ ugha gS A;