Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) INSTANT petition has been filed with the grievance that the Petitioner is senior to the incumbent (Respondent -5 herein) having been appointed as Vidhyarthi Mitra, primarily on the premise that Petitioner worked as Vidhyarthi Mitra for academic year 2008 -09 whereas Respondent -5 was appointed for the first time in academic year 2009 -10 onwards and has prayed to appoint the Petitioner by replacing Respondent -5.
(2.) WHAT has been urged by Petitioner is of no substance for the reason that merely because he worked prior to Respondent -5 as Vidhyarthi Mitra will not give seniority over Respondent -5 while seeking appointment since appointments on the post of Vidhyarathi Mitra are not made by regular mode of recruitment under the Rules by issuing advertisement or through PSC and this is only a stop gap arrangement till regularly selected persons are made available & appointed as Vidhyarathi Mitra. His claim of seniority qua Respondent -5 does not hold good. That apart, Petitioner also preferred writ petition for his continuous service as Vidhyarthi Mitra which was decided alongwith CWP -11211/2010 (Nutan Yadav and Ors. v. State & Ors) - in the light whereof, he may avail of remedy under the law if the order of this Court has not been complied with. However, this Court finds no justification to entertain instant petition.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.;