- (1.) RAJEEV Gupta, C. J. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. N. B. Tiwari, Addl. Advocate General/chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Nanak Chand Gupta, Standing Counsel for the respondents. They are heard on admission.
(2.) APPELLANT Shishupal Singh Bhandari has filed this Special Appeal against the impugned judgment dated 16-11-2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 1980 of 2003 (S/s ). Petitioner Shishupal Singh Bhandari filed the writ petition for the following reliefs : "a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to call for the record and to quash the advertisement dated 01-12-2003 issued by the respondent no. 3 contained in Annexure no. 8 to the writ petition. b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus com manding the respondents not to make any appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra in Primary School, Nilarhi pursuant to the impugned advertisement. c. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus com manding the respondent no. 2 to given approval to the appoint ment of the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra in Rajkiya Adarsh Vidhyalaya (Primary School) Nilarhi Block - Narayan Bagarh, District Chamoli. d. Issue 3 writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus com manding the respondents to pay arrears of honorarium / salary as admissible to the petitioner and further honorarium / salary on month to month basis regularly. e. Award the costs of the writ pe tition in favour of the petitioner. " Respondent No. 3 Pradhan / Adhyaksha, Gram Shiksha Samiti, Gram Panchayat Nilarhi, Block Narayan Bagarh, District Chamoli invited appli cations for appointment to the post of Shiksha Mitra in Primary School, Village Nilarhi in District Chamoli vide Adver tisement dated 11-07- 2003, wherein the last date for submitting the applications was prescribed as 20-07- 2003. As peti tioner Shishupal Singh Bhandari was the sole applicant in response to the said Advertisement, respondent No. 3 passed a resolution recommending the appoint ment of petitioner Shishupal Singh Bhandari on the post of Shiksha Mitra. Respondent No. 2 Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Chamoli, finding serious irregu larities in the selection process, did not approve the appointment of petitioner Shishupal Singh Bhandari on the post of Shiksha Mitra and directed respond ent No. 3 Pradhan /adhyaksha, Gram Shiksha Samiti, Gram Panchayat Nilarhi to re-advertise the post of Shiksha Mitra and invite fresh applications. In compli ance of the above direction of respond ent No. 2 Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Chamoli, respondent No. 3 issued an other Advertisement dated 01-12-2003 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) in viting fresh applications for the post of Shiksha Mitra.
(3.) THIS second Advertisement dated 01-12-2003 was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition filed by pe titioner Shishupal Singh Bhandari. In the counter affidavit filed or. behalf of respondents Nos. 1 & 2, it was specifically pleaded that as the election process undertaken by Gram Panchayat Nilarhi, headed by respondent No. 3, was found to have been conducted in breach of the guidelines laid down in the Government Order issued in that behalf, the recommendation made by respondent No. 3, for appointment of petitioner Shishupal Singh Bhandari on the post of Shiksha Mitra, Primary School, Vil lage Nilarhi, was not approved by re spondent No. 2 Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Chamoli and direction was issued to is sue fresh advertisement for the said post. The averments in paras 12 and 13 of the counter affidavit read as follows : "12. That as per the contents of para no. 10 of the writ petition are not accepted. The allegations are false and are a part of an attempt by the petitioner to justify his illegal appointment. The respondent No. 3, Pradhan, G am Panchayat, Nilarhi had sent proposal for appointment of petitioner only ignoring other names. Perhaps it is with this backgrounds, the petitioner had sanctioned the name of Km. Arti D/o Sri Rajendra Singh, R/o Village Nilarhi, which was the eligible and qualified for the ap pointment. Since the proposal sent by the Gram Pradhan / respondent no. 3, was not according to the rules and was defective, hence the proposal was rejected and sent back to the respondent no. 3 as also the Head Master, Primary School Nilarhi vide letter no. 617 / Shiksha Mitra / 2003-2004 dated 23-10-2003 which spe cifically mentions that the application for a candidate, who was a resident of different Gram Panchayat, and outsider as such. Copy of letter dated 23-10-2003 is being filed herewith and is marked as ANNEXURE NO. C. A. 2 to this counter affidavit, which is self explanatory and reflects the entire controversy that the peti tioner did not qualified the norms for the appointment under Shiksha Mitra Yojna as he was outsider and was not a resident of Gram Panchayat Nilarhi. 13. That as per the contents of para no. 11 of the writ petition are not ac cepted. The petitioner has distorted this fact, it is wrong to say that no other candidate had applied. The fact is that the respondent no, 3 was in collusion with the petitioner and had refused to accept the application of Km. Arti, aforesaid. In this con text, it is necessary to state that the respondent no. 3 had refused to ac cept the application of Km. Arti and a direction was issued by the Assist ant Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Narain Bagar, District Chamoli to the re spondent no. 3 vide letter no. 2122/ Shiksha Mitra 03-04 dated 9-8-2003 to accept the application of Km. Arti, aforesaid. Copy of letter dated 9-8-2003 is being filed herewith and is marked as ANNEXURE No. 3 this counter affidavit. Again the aforesaid, Km. Arti had complained to the respondent no. 2 that there were cer tain irregularities in Pradhan Gram Panchayat level and she had com plained that the Gram Pradhan / respondent no. 3 has M/sguided her saying that the post of teacher under Shiksha Mitra Yojna was that for male candidate only. This was a clear violation of the rules. The annexure no. CA 3 contains the entire records of correspondence rel evant to the candidature of Km. Arti and speaks volumes about the irregu larities, manipulations at the Gram Pradhan / respondent no. 3 level, which further proves the irregularities in the appointment of the petitioner, which is altogether illegal.;