- (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 20 -6 -2002 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ order or direction the impugned orders dtd. 04 -06 -2002 (Annex. 4) passed by the Collector, Hanumangarh by which the application of respondent No. 7 Tarawanti was accepted and it was directed that the respondent No. 7 be given posting as para teacher at the place of her choice, namely, Bhirani and the order dtd. 10 -6 -2002 (Annex. 5) passed by the Collector, Hanumangarh by which the respondent No. 7 was selected as para teacher against the post of village Bhirani and the letter dt. 12 -6 -2002 by which Block Reference Centre Incharge, D. P. E. P. (respondent No. 6) relieved the petitioner with effect from 12 -6 -2002 from the training course of para teacher be quashed and set aside.
(2.) THE facts as put forward by the petitioner are as under : i) That the respondents issued an advertisement on 6 -5 -2002 whereby applications were invited for appointment on the post of para teacher under the Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala Scheme for Dist. Hanumangarh. ii) That the petitioner also submitted her application and interviews were held on 20 - 5 -2002 before the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee declared the result and the petitioner was declared successful. A copy of the result dtd. 30 -5 -2002 is marked as Annex. 2 and a list of successful candidates is also annexed with it. iii) The further case of the petitioner is that she was selected as para teacher against the post of village Bhirani whereas respondent No. 7 was selected as para teacher against the post of village Serda. NOTE : It may be stated here that the petitioner only applied for the post of Village Bhirani and the list of successful candidates for the post of para Teacher against the post of village Bhirani is marked as ANNEX. 13 at page 74 wherein, the respondent No. 7 was shown at serial No. 2 in the merit list of para -teacher against the post of village Bhirani, whereas the petitioner was shown at serial No. 3 in the merit list of para teacher against the post of village Bhirani and furthermore respondent No. 7 simultaneously also applied for the post of para teacher against the post of village Serda where she stood at Serial No. 2 in the merit list of para teacher against the post of village Serda. Thus, respondent No. 7 was declared successful for both, namely for the post para teacher against the vacancy of Village Bhirani as well as for the post of para teacher against the vacancy of village Serda for the post of para teacher against the vacancy of village Bhirani the respondent No. 7 stood at serial No. 2 i.e. higher in merit than the petitioner as she stood at serial No. 3 in the merit list below the respondent No. 7. Consequently, thereafter the petitioner was sent for training of para teacher against the post of Village Bhirani and respondent No. 7 was sent for training against the post of Serda. iv) Further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of her selection as para teacher against the post of village Bhirani, she joined training course and gave her reporting on 1 -6 -2002 through Annex 3. v) The further case of the petitioner is that through letter dt. 21 -5 -2002 (Annex. 9), the respondent No. 7 made a request before respondent No. 4 (Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra) that she should be selected as para teacher against the post of village Serda and on that application, (Annex. 9), her prayer was accepted and she was recommended for selection as para teacher against the post of village Serda. The respondent No. 7 made another application dt.21 -5 -2002 (Annex. 10) before respondent No. 4 that since she had been selected as para teacher against the post of village Bhirani, therefore she should be appointed as para -teacher against the post of village Bhirani. The application dt. 21 -5 -2002 (Annex. 10) was rejected by the concerned authority on the ground that she had already been selected as Para Teacher against the post of village Serda and, the petitioner was recommended for the post of village Bhirani by the same order. vi) The further case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 7 became aggrieved from the order dt. 21 -5 -2002 passed on her application dt. 21 -5 -2002 (Annex. 10) and, therefore, he moved an application before the Collector, Hanumangarh. The Collector, Hanumangarh through impugned order dt. 4 -6 -2002 (Annex. 4) accepted the application of respondent No. 7 and ordered that she should be given posting of her choice at the place Bhirani. (It is clarified here that in the application which was presented by respondent No. 7 before the Collector, Hanumangarh. the petitioner was not made party by respondent No.7 and the order dt. 4 -6 -2002 (Annex. 4) was passed in absence of the petitioner.) vi) In pursuance of order dt. 4 -6 -2002. the Collector passed an order dt. 10 -6 -2002 (Annex. 5) by which respondent No.7 was selected as Para Teacher against the post of village Bhirani. vii) That in compliance of order dt. 10 -6 -2002 (Annex. 5), the respondent No. 6 passed an order dt. 12 -6 -2002 (Annex. 6) by which the petitioner who was undergoing training for Para Teacher with effect from 1 -6 -2002 was relieved on 12 -6 -2002. viii) In this writ petition, the orders dt. 4 - 6 -2002 (Annex. 4), 10 -6 -2002 (Annex. 5) and order dt. 12 -6 -2002 (Annex. 6) have been challenged.
(3.) IN this writ petition, the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since she has been selected as para -teacher against the post of village Bhirani and in pursuance of that she has joined training course and was undergoing training, subsequent orders dt. 4 -6 -2002 (Annex. 4) and 10 -6 -2002 (Annex. 5) passed by the Collector without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner are null and void and therefore, the orders dt. 4 -6 -2002, 10 -6 -2002 and 12 -6 -2002 (Annexures 4, 5 and 6 respectively) should be set aside. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent No. 7 and it has been submitted by respondent No. 7 that so far as application dt. 21 -5 -2002 (Annex. 9) is concerned, the order which was passed on should not have been treated as passed with her consent in view of the fact that on the same date she had given another application (Annex. 10), therefore, in all respects her consent for Serda should not have been accepted and the order which was passed on the application dt. 21 -5 -2002 (Annex. 10) was without jurisdiction and the orders were rightly passed by the collector, Hanumangarh dt. 4 -6 -2002 (Annex. 4) and 10 -6 -2002 (Annex. 5) and further more since she was placed in the merit above the petitioner in the merit list (Annex. 13) of para teacher against the vacancy of village Bhirani, therefore, she has got better claim for the post of Para Teacher against the vacancy of village Bhirani in comparison to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the writ petition should be dismissed.;