Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner's appointment as Motivator (prerak) has been annulled on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to occupy the post.
(2.) THERE are two posts for village Nickrojpur. According to the reservation applicable, the first post ought to have been offered to the other backward category. The merit list was prepared but it appears according to the finding recorded in the impugned order that for the second post only the application of the petitioner was entertained and she was appointed. Aggrieved, a complaint was filed which has now been entertained and the impugned order has been passed. The petitioner claims selection and appointment against the second post which according to the undisputed position has to be offered to a female candidate. She contends that the complaint made was for a different post in another school but the District Magistrate has passed an order on the selections of the petitioner which has no concern with the facts of the complaint made by respondent No. 6. The contention is that the decision is misdirected on a wrong consideration of facts.
(3.) HAVING perused the impugned order, it appears that while examining the complaint on a direction issued by this Court, the District Magistrate discovered that the selection of the petitioner was against the merit list prepared and after hearing the petitioner, held that the female candidate who was higher in qualification than the petitioner deserved to be appointed.;