V.M.Sahai, Pankaj Mithal - (1.) -We have heard Sri Man Bahadur Singh learned counsel for the appellant, learned standing counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4, Sri Anuj Kumar for respondent No. 5, Sri Jagdish Pathak learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 and Sri Tej Bhan Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 7.
(2.) A single post of Shiksha Mitra of Prathamic Vidhyalaya Sikandarpur Aaima, block Mahrajganj, Tehsil Sagari district Azamgarh was advertised on 24th December 2006. The last date of submitting the application form complete in all respect was 24.1.2007. Three candidates including the appellant Smt. Neelu Devi and the respondent No. 6 Smt. Saroj Yadav applied within time. Smt. Neelu Devi submitted her application form in the prescribed proforma on 22.1.2007 but without annexing the copy of the domicile certificate. On her application seeking time for submitting such certificate the Gram Pradhan allowed her time uptil 30.1.2007 to submit the domicile certificate. She obtained domicile certificate on 27.1.2007 certifying that she is resident of the village concerned and the said certificate was presented and taken on record on the same day. In the selection, she secured higher marks and was selected. Her name was recommended for appointment as Shiksha Mitra by the Gram Shiksha Samiti and the same was approved by the District Level Committee also. Aggrieved by her selection, Smt. Saroj Yadav filed Writ Petition No. 11624 of 2008 which was disposed of with the direction to the District Magistrate to consider the grievance of Smt. Saroj Yadav by a speaking order. In pursuance thereof after hearing the parties concerned and calling for the report of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, the District Magistrate vide order dated 6.6.2008 allowed the representation of Smt. Saroj Yadav and held that the application form of Smt. Neelu Devi was incomplete as it was not accompanied by the domicile certificate and as such her candidature was not valid. The above order of the District Magistrate was challenged by the appellant Smt. Neelu Devi by filing Writ Petition No. 31675 of 2008. The petition was dismissed by learned single Judge vide judgment and order dated 20.8.2008 which has been impugned in the present special appeal. The first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant Smt. Neelu Devi's candidature could not have been rejected by the District Magistrate on the ground that her application form was incomplete. She had submitted the domicile certificate though after expiry of the last date for submitting the application form, but within time allowed by the Gram Pradhan who happens to be the member of the Gram Shiksha Samiti. This submission cannot be accepted for the reason that the authority to accept the application form and to recommend the name of selected candidate for appointment as Shiksha Mitra under the scheme dated 1.7.2000 as amended from time to time vests with the Gram Shiksha Samiti. The Gram Pradhan personally or in his capacity as the President or the member of the Gram Shiksha Samiti has no authority of law to extend the time for submitting the application form or the documents/certificates in support thereof. Admittedly, no extra time was given by the Gram Shiksha Samiti to the appellant for submitting the domicile certificate. Therefore, when on the last date of submitting the application forms the appellant's application was incomplete it was liable to be rejected as per para 7 (Da) of the amended scheme dated 10.10.2005. The scheme categorically provides that all required documents/certificates must be annexed along with the application form and that no extra time will be provided for the purpose. Therefore, the time schedule for submitting the application forms is required to be strictly followed without any deviation and the purpose being to avoid chaos and chances of large scale manipulations.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant next submitted that under the scheme there is no specific provision requiring submission of the domicile certificate with the application form and therefore the rejection of the candidature of the appellant Smt. Neelu Devi is wholly illegal. A perusal of the scheme for Shiksha Mitra reveals that it is not a scheme for employment but a scheme to provide education to the illiterate class of villagers. The scheme envisages for giving preference for appointments of Shiksha Mitra to the persons who are resident of the village concerned. Therefore, to verify the place of residence of the candidate, a domicile certificate issued by the competent authority certifying the candidate's place of residence appears to be necessary. Therefore, even if in the amended scheme there is no specific reference that the candidate has to submit a domicile certificate along with the application form, nonetheless in view of the object of the scheme and the language of the advertisement the submission of all certificates including domicile certificate is mandatory. We accordingly, hold that the submission of the domicile certificate along with the application for appointment for Shiksha Mitra is a must and non-submission of the same within time renders the application form incomplete and liable for rejection.;