- (1.) A. P. Sahi, J. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
(2.) THE petitioner has prayed for a mandamus to cancel the appointment of the respondent No. 5, and the appointment is being impeached by the petitioner on the ground that his selection was invalid being contrary to the terms of the Government order dated 1-7-2000 Annexure 1 to the writ petition. THE ground for challenge is that the Gram Pradhan at the time of the selection was the real uncle of the petitioner. He was the Sabhapati (Chairman) of the Gram Shiksa Samiti which made the selection. I have gone through the Government order dated 1-7-2000 and have perused the relevant clause contained at internal Page 27 of the paper book of this writ petition which provides that the close relation of the Chairman and Secretary of the Gram Shiksha Samiti shall be disqualified for being appointed as Shiksha Mitra. The word close relatives has been clearly defined so as to include father, grand-father, father-in-law, son grand-son, son- in-law, brother, sister, husband, wife, daughter and mother. The daughter-in-law is included vide G. O. dated 10-10-2005. A perusal of the aforesaid exhaustive list indicates that it does not include nephew within the prohibited category. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of G. P. Singh v. State of U. P. , 2005 (2) ESC 1199 (All), to support his contention. A perusal of the said decision indicates that it has considered the explanation appended to Rule 165 (5) of the Rules under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The said decision, no where, considers the classification of the prohibited category as provided in the Government order dated 1-7-2000. Even otherwise applying the reasoning, pertaining to the restrictions placed on the relatives seeking appointment, the said decision also clarifies that in the event the definition is exhaustive and not illustrative, it is not possible for this Court to add or subtract anything to the definition contained in the Government order. The definition clause defines close relatives as 'means' and not 'such as'. In the circumstances the definition of the word relative as disclosed in the Government order is exhaustive and not illustrative.
(3.) THE Apex Court in the case of Sangeeta Singh v. Union of India, JT 2005 (7) SC 545, has, while considering such a situation in the matter of allotment of petroleum products dealership, clearly ruled that Courts can either add, delete or modify such definitions, and overruled the decision of this Court. The contention of the petitioner, therefore, on the aforesaid score cannot be accepted. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;