A.P.SAHI,J - (1.) THE challenge in the present petition is to the advertisement for appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra. The contention raised by the petitioner is that without cancelling the appointment of the petitioner, the respondents have proceeded to re-advertise the post. It is neither disputed rather it is admitted that the petitioner has been subjected to criminal prosecution and was also arrested in a Case, being Case Crime No. 1 of 2009, under Sections 363/366 IPC. The petitioner was admittedly bailed out by this Court on 27.8.2009.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the bail order has been granted on the ground that the alleged victim/prosecutrix was a major and that the petitioner being the maternal uncle of the accused and not the real culprit, was falsely implicated. The merits of the bail order cannot be a consideration before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but the said fact is sufficient to indicate that the petitioner has been put behind bars in a case involving him under Sections 363/366 IPC which may reflect moral turpitude. In such a situation, it is not advisable to continue such a person as Shiksha Mitra. The petitioner was admittedly absent for a fairly long time and he took an excuse of medical leave as well as before he was taken into custody. It is admitted that the applicant could not perform his duty on account of his ailment and criminal prosecution. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find it necessary to interfere with the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed.;