Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has sought the quashing of the order dated 6th June, 2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chauri Chaura, Gorakhpur by which the selection of the petitioner as Anganbadi Karyakatri has been set aside on the representation filed by one Smt. Neeloo Devi Yadav, respondent No. 5, who had also submitted an application for the said selection.
(2.) AN advertisement was issued inviting applications from Scheduled Castes candidates for engagement as ANganbadi Karyakatri. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 and certain other candidates applied. The Selection Committee recommended the name of the petitioner for such engagement. However, before the appointment order could be issued, respondent No. 5, Smt. Neeloo Yadav, submitted a representation that she belongs to the Scheduled Castes but by mistake surname was written as Yadav though she belongs to Bhar Caste which was declared as Scheduled Caste under the notification dated 10th October, 2005 and so she should have been selected as ANganbadi Karyakatri instead of the petitioner. It is on this representation that the order dated 6th June, 2006 was passed. It mentions that an inquiry was got conducted through the Naib Tehsildar, who submitted a report on the basis of the statements of certain persons that Smt. Neeloo Devi belongs to "Bhar" Caste and 'Yadav' had wrongly been written as her surname. The order further mentions that since "Bhar" Caste has now been declared as a Scheduled Caste, the appointment order in favour of the petitioner may not be issued and her selection should be cancelled. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 5, Neeloo Devi and nor has any counsel appeared on her behalf though Neeloo Devi has filed a separate petition being Writ Petition No. 10147 of 2006 for a direction upon the respondents to give her appointment. This petition has been dismissed in default by order of date. The post was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a Scheduled Caste candidate and nor is there any dispute that the Selection Committee recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment of Anganbadi Karyakatri. The order dated 6th June, 2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate only mentions that a representation had been filed by respondent No. 5, Neeloo Devi, that she belongs to the Scheduled Castes and on making inquiries, it was found that she belongs to "Bhar" Caste which has been declared as a Scheduled Caste. It is on this basis that a recommendation has been made for cancellation of the selection of the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Selection Committee had recommended the name of the petitioner for engagement as Aangan Bari Karyakatri and the claim of Smt. Neeloo Devi was rightly ignored as she did not belong to the Scheduled Castes. He further submitted that Smt. Neeloo Devi cannot be treated as Scheduled Caste candidate in view of the fact that the said notification dated 10th October, 2005 had been stayed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 76922 of 2005 by the order dated 20th December, 2005 and subsequently the Karmik Department had also issued a notification dated 13th July, 2006 restoring the position as it stood prior to the issuance of the notification dated 10th October, 2005. He also submitted that subsequently the Karmik Department issued yet another notification dated 4th July, 2007 rescinding the notification dated 10th October, 2005 and subsequently the Principal Secretary, Government of U.P. also sent a communication dated 29th January, 2008 that in view of the aforesaid notification all caste certificates issued between 10th October, 2005 and 4th July, 2007 on the basis of the notification dated 10th October, 2005 should be treated as void being contrary to the provisions of Article 341 of the Constitution. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute this position.;