- (1.) HEARD Mr. Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. P. N. Ojha appearing for the appellant, Mr. Girish Chandra Upadhyay, Standing Counsel for the State appearing for respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 and Mr. R. P. Dubey appearing for respondent No. 2. Mr. Sanjay Kumar appears for respondent No. . 5. All respondents are served.
(2.) THE appeal was admitted by an order passed by a Division Bench, in which one of us (Hon. H. L. Gokhale, C. J.) was a party, on 1. 11. 2007. With the consent of the Counsel appearing for the respondents the appeal is taken up for final hearing and is being disposed of. This appeal arises out of writ petition No. 9456 of 2007 filed by the respon dent No. 5 herein, one Puran Lal Sonkar, father of one Km. Sunaina Devi. The prayer in the petition was to direct the State of U. P. and the Additional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad to consider the request of the petitioner for provid ing examination centre at Mahatma Joti Rao Phule Vidya Ashram Higher Sec ondary School, Karadham, district Kaushambi, where the daughter of respondent No. 4 was studying. The petition was filed on 19m February, 2007 and the exami nation was to be held in March, 2007. Inasmuch as the time to consider such a prayer was inadequate, the centre could not be allotted at that school. Meanwhile, the daughter of respondent No. 4 appeared for the High School examina tion, from where she was allotted the centre and passed the examination. The mark-sheet is at Annexure-14 to this appeal. Mr. Sanjay Kumar appearing for respondent No. 5 accepts this position. Now, what has happened is that the learned Single Judge, who was seized of the petition continued to retain and proceed with the matter which in fact thus had become clearly infructuous. He went on passing different orders. These orders are dated (i) 12. 3. 2007, (ii) 23. 3. 2007, (Hi) 6. 4. 2007, (iv) 4. 5. 2007, (v) 2. 7. 2007, (vi) 9. 8. 2007, (vii) 17. 9. 2007, (viii) 12. 10. 2007 and one more order directing a C. B. I, enquiry. The first order dated 12. 3. 2007 records that certain black listed examina tion centres initially withdrawn were subsequently re-allotted and that required enquiry. The second order dated 23. 3. 2007 records that a preliminary enquiry had been done by the Chief Secretary into such 34 centres in that district detecting irregularities. The order thereafter directed that action be taken against the Sachiv, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and the Director of Education for their inaction within ten days on the basis of the report dated 22. 3. 2007 referred in that order. By the next order dated 6. 4. 2007 the learned Single Judge ordered for an enquiry by C. B. I. This order was challenged by filing a Special Appeal and that order was stayed. Subsequently, on 4. 5. 2007 the learned Single Judge directed the Chief Secretary to file his personal affidavit with respect to the steps being taken. This was followed by one more order dated 2. 7. 2007, which directs for issuance of charge-sheet. Meanwhile, new Chief Secretary had taken charge. He was di rected to serve charge-sheet upon the District Inspector of Schools, Kaushambi within 15 days. The order passed thereafter is dated 9. 8. 2007. It records that an I. A. S. Officer has been appointed as the Enquiry Officer for the enquiry contem plated by the learned Single Judge. On 17. 9. 2007 the learned Single Judge re corded that the progress made by the Government was too slow and the report of the Enquiry Officer be produced in original on subsequent date. It also directed that the Principal Secretary as well as the Enquiry Officer, an I. A. S. officer will remain present in the Court. Lastly, on 12. 10. 2007 the matter was adjourned to 2. 11. 2007 and it was at this stage that the appeal was filed.
(3.) THIS appeal has been filed by the Director of Education (Secondary) chal lenging these eight orders passed on 12. 3. 2007,23. 3. 2007,6. 4. 2007,4. 5. 2007, 2. 7. 2007,9. 8. 2007,17. 9. 2007 and 12. 10. 2007. As far as the order dated 6. 4. 2007 is concerned, which directs for C. B. I, enquiry, the State filed an appeal and stay has been granted in that appeal. The appellant seeks to challenge that order also. The appellant had applied for joining in the petition as respondent by mov ing an impleadment application. No orders have been passed on that application and the application remains pending. It is for this reason that leave to appeal was sought to file the appeal and that was granted on the last date.;