V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) CIVIL Misc. Writ Petition No. 60045 of 2006 has been filed for quashing of the order dated 08.09.2006 passed by District Magistrate, Hamirpur, rejecting the representation of Smt. Archana Chaturedi, with further request that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to appoint her as Shikshamitra. CIVIL Misc. Writ Petition No. 34413 of 2008 has been filed questioning the validity of decision dated 16.05.2008 taken by District Basic Education Officer, Hamirpur, restraining Km. Poonam Verma from performing and discharging duties as Shikshamitra. Brief background of the case is that on 27.10.2005 an advertisement was published in daily Newspaper "Amar Ujala" inviting applications for making selection and appointment on the post of Shikshamitra. In the said selection proceedings, both Smt. Archana Chaturvedi and Km. Poonam Verma claim to have applied for consideration of their candidature. In the meeting of Gram Shiksha Samiti held on 28.11.2005, list was prepared and therein the name of Km. Poonam Verma figured at the top, whereas name of Smt. Archana Chaturvedi figured at Serial No.2. Smt. Archana Chaturvedi was dissatisfied with the recommendation on the ground that Km. Poonam Verma was not at all resident of the village in question and coupled with this her application form had been illegally accepted subsequent to the last date, as such she preferred writ petition before this Court, it being writ petition No.44425 of 2006, and this Court on 21.08.2006 asked the District Magistrate, Hamirpur to look into the matter and decide the same. During pendency of the matter, candidature of Km. Poonam Verma was finalised and she was asked to complete her training. Km. Poonam Verma completed training and joined as Shikshamitra on 27.11.2006. Thereafter, the District Magistrate took decision and rejected the representation of Smt. Archana Chaturvedi. Aggrieved against the said action, Smt. Archana Chaturvedi has preferred CIVIL Misc. Writ Petition No. 60045 of 2006. On presentation of the aforesaid writ petition, this Court had stayed operation of the order passed by the District Magistrate, and thereafter in compliance of the interim order passed by this Court, order had been passed on 16.05.2008, which is subject matter of challenge in CIVIL Misc. Writ Petition No. 34413 of 2008. On presentation of CIVIL Misc. Writ Petition No. 34413 of 2008, same was directed to be clubbed along with the record of CIVIL Misc. Writ Petition No. 60045 of 2006. After exchange of pleadings in the aforesaid writ petitions, both the writ petitions have been taken up together for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties. Sri A.B.L. Gaur, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri R.K. Shukla, Advocate, appearing for Smt. Archana Chaturvedi, contended with vehemence that in the present case candidature of Km. Poonam Verma has been illegally considered, whereas admittedly, her application form was incomplete and the documents in support of the same were filed after expiry of the last date for submission of application forms, and coupled with this, issue with regard to her domicile had also been raised before the District Magistrate, but the District Magistrate deliberately did not advert to the said aspect of the matter, as such selection of Km. Poonam Verma is liable to be quashed and Smt. Archana Chaturvedi being eligible and entitled in all respects, she should be appointed as Shikshamitra. Countering the said submission, Sri R.K.S. Chauhan, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Km. Poonam Verma, on the other hand, contended with vehemence that in the present case application form was submitted well within time by Km. Poonam Verma and her merit status being highest, she was appointed on the post of Shikshamitra and her term has been duly renewed, and she could not have been restrained from performing and discharging her duties, as such orders be passed for ensuring her functioning and ensuring remuneration to her. After respective arguments have been advanced, advertisement dated 27.10.2005 has been perused. Said advertisement clearly mentions that the candidate should be resident of the same Gram Panchayat, wherein institution in question is situated and the appointment has to be made. Clear cut stipulation is also there that on prescribed format, the first copy of the application along with consent letter, all educational testimonials, experience certificate, caste certificate, age certificate and domicile certificate should be submitted by 5.00 p. m. on 20.11.2005 with the Secretary of Gram Shiksha Samiti i.e. the Head Master of the institution and the second copy of such a complete application should be given to M.P.R.C. Coordinator and receipt be accepted in lieu thereof. Further provision is there that in case the application is not accepted by the Secretary of Gram Shiksha Samiti, it can be got received in the office of the Assistant Basic Education Officer of the Block concerned. It has also been provided that any application received after due date shall not be considered. In the present case factual position on which there is no dispute, is that the application form of Km. Poonam Verma was incomplete, as domicile certificate was not filed along with the application, whereas it was mandatory requirement that the application should be filed as per terms and conditions of the advertisement. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Km Poonam Verma this fact has been admitted by her that domicile certificate was submitted by her later on, as it was not prepared and issued by the appropriate authority by the time of filing the application. The date of domicile certificate filed as Annexure-C.A.-1 is 28.11.2005. Thus, on admitted position, the application form of km. Poonam Verma was incomplete, as such same could not have been accepted for consideration of her candidature, specially when there was no authority vested in the concerned authority to relax any of the conditions of the advertisement. Thus, the application of Km. Poonam Verma was incomplete on the face of it; coupled with this, the first copy of the application was to be deposited with the Head Master of the institution who happens to be the Secretary of Gram Shiksha Samiti and receipt was to be obtained. Second copy was to be deposited with the MPRC Coordinator and receipt was to be obtained. In the present case, admitted position is that the application form of Km. Poonam Verma, at no point of time, had ever been deposited with the Head Master by 5.00 p.m. on 20.11.2005, rather the same was got received on 21.11.2005. This is not at all the case of Km. Poonam Verma that she had gone to the Head Master to hand over the application, but the same was refused to be accepted by him on 20.11.2005. By no stretch of imagination, the application could have been accepted by the Head Master on 21.11.2005 i.e. after the prescribed date. Merely because the second copy of the application form had been handed over to MPRC Coordinator on 20.11.2005, same ipso facto did not give any right to the Head Master to accept the application of Km. Poonam verma on 21.11.2005. The District Magistrate, in the present case very conveniently has ignored this aspect of the matter and has misdirected himself while taking decision on the representation of Smt. Archana Chaturvedi. Smt. Archana Chaturvedi has also raised serious objection in respect of domicile of Km. Poonam Verma. The District Magistrate most surprisingly has not at all considered this issue and very conveniently has ignored the aforesaid facet also. In this background, the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 08.09.2006 cannot be sustained, as such the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The question is as to what further directives be issued on admitted position. In normal case, the matter would have been remitted back for fresh adjudication, but on admitted position candidature of Km. Poonam Verma, based on incomplete application form and that too having been submitted after due date, had been illegally accepted by the Secretary, Gram Shiksha Samiti, as such on the basis of said application, her candidature cannot be subscribed. Consequently, her selection is not being approved of. In the background that the appointment on the post of Shikshamitra is confined to one academic session only, and in case work and conduct of such an appointed Shikshamitra is found satisfactory, the provision of renewal is there. Once candidature of Km. Poonam Verma is not approved of and the academic session in question is already over, as such it is hereby directed that fresh denovo selection be held for the post of Shikshamitra, preferably, within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. For the period for which Km. Poonam Verma has already actually functioned, remuneration be ensured to her. In the result, CIVIL Misc. Writ Petition No.60045 of 2006 is allowed; the order dated 08.09.2006 is hereby quashed. CIVIL Misc. Writ Petition No. 34413 of 2008 is dismissed, as the appointment of Km. Poonam Verma has not been approved of by this Court.;