- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.B. Yadav for the respondent No.6 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
(2.) THE petitioner, who is a Schedule Caste, has assailed the order dated 29.12.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Ballia, relating to the engagement of a Motivator (Prerak), which is a post under a specific scheme. The appointment has to be made on contract basis for 11 months. The scheme has been promulgated under a Government Order and the provision made therein is that at least one female candidate shall be appointed, and if they belong to the Scheduled Caste or Backward Category, they shall be given preference. The respondent No.6 is of the backward category. Both of them namely the petitioner and the respondent No.6 are stated to have identical quality point marks. The question arose as to which of the candidates is entitled for the said post. The petitioner was offered appointment which came to be challenged. Now the District Magistrate has held that since the respondent No.6 is elder in age as against the petitioner, she is entitled for being appointed in terms of the Government Order dated 5.12.2012. The undisputed facts are that quality point marks of the respondents and the petitioner are identical. They also belong to the category of Scheduled Caste and Backward Category. There is nothing in the Government Order which may give a preference to the Scheduled Caste candidate over a Backward Category candidate. In the aforesaid circumstances, the clause requiring to give priority to a candidate elder in age has been invoked and the finding recorded by the District Magistrate to this extent does not suffer from any infirmity. There is no ground made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed.;