RAVI S.DHAVAN - (1.) THE petitioner, Shashank Maulishwar Mani Tripathi, does not find his name being forwarded for approval to the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria, for being appointed in a vacancy which has occurred on the post of a L T. Grade teacher. THE Committee of Management of Lala Karam Chand Thapar Inter College, Baitalpur, Deoria, has forwarded the name of Umender Singh as Assistant teacher for approval before the District Inspector of Schools. Deoria. As, the petitioners name has been left out or, in the alternative, his name has not been sent, this action of the Committee of Management aggrieves the petitioner and thus, he has filed the present writ petition. THE approval has been granted by the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria, on the name of respondent no. 3, namely Umender Singh. 1214 Rama v. D.D.C. (S. R. Singh, J.) [ 1993
(2.) THE contention in the petition is that, if the grading had correctly been done at the selection by the Committee of Management, then the petitioner ought to have been selected and his name would have been forwarded for approval. In this context, learned, counsel for the petitioner. Sri Dinesh Dwivedi, placed before the Court, the U. P. Madhyamik Shiksha Sewa Aayog. (Prathan Sansodhan) Niyamawali, 1992 THE contention is to the effect that had the gradations been done in accordance with the rules, aforesaid, the result would have been different. The Court has seen the marks of respondent no. 3 and also of the petitioner as given in the petition, in paragraphs 4 and 6. While this Court is unable to say which of the two is better qualified or, for that matter, inferior to other, the Court is of the view that the Selection Committee has not committed any error. It cannot be ruled out that if the grading is to be done, as the petitioner desires, It may show another result. But, at the best, this would be a second view of the situation, If two views are possible and one is not illogical, a writ of certiorari cannot be issued merely became the Court could also take another view.
(3.) THUS, this is not a matter in which the High Court ought to interfere. The writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.;