# Rajeev Kumar and another v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 1 ILRA 373
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-04-21
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29149 of 2005
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajeev-kumar-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40454
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Service
law-Appointment-"Shiksha
Mitra"-with
the
collusion
of
village
education
committee-the
petitioner
got
appointment on the basis of approval
order-based
on
fraud-on
the
representation
made
by
private
respondent-the
District
Magistrate
cancelled
the
appointment-heldpetitions have no right-the candidate
having better quality point marks-can
not be ignored-The D.M. advances the
substantial
justice-court
declined
to
interfere.

Held-Para 8

The findings of fact recorded by the
District Magistrate that Gram Shiksha
Samiti has recommended the names of
the
petitioners
has
obtained
appointments in collusion with the Gram
Shiksha Samiti. The selection process
was only an eye wash and fraud. It is
settled law that fraud vitiates every
action and does not vest the petitioner
with any legal right. The order passed by
the District Magistrate advances the
cause of substantial justice.

## Text

1 All] Naeem Ahmad V. Abdul Majeed
373
Considering the facts and circumstances
and in the interest of justice I direct that
the order of eviction shall not be executed
against the petitioner till 31st August,
2005 provided the petitioner furnishes an
undertaking
before
the
prescribed
authority within as period of one month
from today that he will hand over
peaceful
vacant
possession
of
the
accommodation in dispute to the land lord
on or before 31st August 2005 provided
further that the petitioner-tenant pays, if
not already paid, the entire rent and
damages at the rate of rent to the land lord
within the same period of one month and
keeps on paying the same by the first
week of succeeding month so long the
petitioner remains in possession or till 31st
August, 2005 whichever is earlier. In the
event of default of any of the conditions,
it will be open to the land lord to get the
order of eviction executed.

With the aforesaid observations this
writ petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29149 of 2005

Rajeev Kumar and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri V.D. Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anuj Kumar, Addl. S.C.
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Service
law-Appointment-"Shiksha
Mitra"-with
the
collusion
of
village
education
committee-the
petitioner
got
appointment on the basis of approval
order-based
on
fraud-on
the
representation
made
by
private
respondent-the
District
Magistrate
cancelled
the
appointment-heldpetitions have no right-the candidate
having better quality point marks-can
not be ignored-The D.M. advances the
substantial
justice-court
declined
to
interfere.

Held-Para 8

The findings of fact recorded by the
District Magistrate that Gram Shiksha
Samiti has recommended the names of
the
petitioners
has
obtained
appointments in collusion with the Gram
Shiksha Samiti. The selection process
was only an eye wash and fraud. It is
settled law that fraud vitiates every
action and does not vest the petitioner
with any legal right. The order passed by
the District Magistrate advances the
cause of substantial justice.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior
counsel appearing for the petitioners and
the standing counsel appearing for the
respondents and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed
for quashing of the order dated 17.3.2005
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate,
Moradabad, which has also been sought
commanding the respondents not to take
any action on the basis of the aforesaid
impugned order.

3. The facts in brief are that Gram
Siksha Samiti Vichpuri Vikas Khand
Panwasa
invited
applications
for
consideration of appointment of Shiksha
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
Mitra in Primary Schools falling under its
jurisdiction. According to the merit list
prepared by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari,
Moradabad Rajeev Kumar son of Sri Ram
Phal Singh was appointed at Primary
School, Bichpuri and Khetal Singh son of
Sri Dhirendra Singh was appointed at
Primary School Laharsheesh as Shiksha
Mitra under the Shiksha Mitra Yojna.

4. It appears that respondent nos. 7
and 8 Chauhan Singh son of Basant Ram
Singh and Nihal Singh son of Dhanpal
Singh had also applied for appointment as
Shiksha Mitra along with the petitioners
but their names were not considered by
the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Moradabad
and a resolution dated 16.1.2004 was sent
for approval showing that only two
applications had been received i.e. of the
petitioners Rajeev Kumar and Khetal
Singh. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari, the
District Magistrate, Moradabad and other
concerned authorities accorded approval
for their appointments in good faith and
bonafide belief that only two persons had
applied for appointment as Shiksha Mitra.
Consequently the petitioners were sent for
30 days training at the District Institute of
Education and Training, Kanth District
Moradabad. They undergone training
w.e.f. 13.10.2004 to 31.10.2004. It
appears that in the mean time, respondent
nos. 7 and 8 had made a complaint on
1.11.2004 against the petitioners to the
Basic Shiksha Adhikari whereupon an
order was issued by the District Basic
Shiksha Adhikari, Moradabad canceling
the training of the petitioners.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order
dated 1.11.2004 the petitioners filed
separate writ petition nos. 50384 of 2004
and 50385 of 2004. In the mean time,
District Basic Shiksha Adhikari by order
dated 16.1.2004 issued a notice addressed
to the Chairman and the Secretary of the
Gram Shiksha Samiti intimating that an
enquiry had been instituted at the level of
the Deputy District Magistrate, Sambhal
and called upon them to be present in the
office of the Deputy District Magistrate,
Moradabad for the purpose of the enquiry
on the date fixed.

6. It appears from the record that
respondent nos. 7 and 8 Chauhan Singh
and Nihal Singh had also filed writ
petition nos. 45907 of 2004 and 47265 of
2004 in which directions were issued
directing the respondents to consider their
representations.

7. It also appears from a perusal of
the impugned order dated 9.2.2004 passed
by the District Magistrate, Moradabad
that the Gram Shiksha Samiti had
produced original records of meeting and
the resolution dated 16.1.2004 showing
tat only two applications were received
that of petitioners Rajeev Kumar and
Khetal Singh. It further appears from the
record that Chauhan Singh and Nihal
Singh filed representations in pursuance
of
the
orders
of
this
Court
for
reconsideration of the matter. They also
produced original receipts before the
authorities
showing
that
they
had
submitted applications before the Gram
Shiksha Samiti for consideration of their
appointments as Shiksha Mitra but they
were not considered.

8. In view of the fact that
complainants Chauhan Singh and Nihal
Singh had submitted their applications for
appointment as Shiksha Mitra before the
Gram Shiksha Samiti but their names
were not placed on record in the meeting
dated 16.1.2004, the District Magistrate
1 All] Rajeev Kumar and another V. State of U.P. and others
375
found their complaints to be correct, that
the petitioners and the Gram Shiksha
Samiti had colluded and had deliberately
prepared the resolution suppressing their
candidature and recommending the names
of petitioners Rajeev Kumar and Khetal
Singh who had less quality point marks
than respondent nos. 7 and 8. The District
Magistrate, in the circumstances reviewed
his earlier order dated 9.2.2005 vide order
dated 17.03.2005 cancelling the selections
of the petitioners holding that the
petitioners had less quality point marks
than respondent nos. 7 and 8 and were not
entitled for appointment. The findings of
fact recorded by the District Magistrate
that
Gram
Shiksha
Samiti
has
recommended the names of the petitioners
has obtained appointments in collusion
with the Gram Shiksha Samiti. The
selection process was only an eye wash
and fraud. It is settled law that fraud
vitiates every action and does not vest the
petitioner with any legal right. The order
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate
advances the cause of substantial justice.

9. In the circumstances of the case I
do not find any ground for interference
with the impugned order under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.

For the reasons stated above, the writ
petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.02.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38910 of 2003

Iqbal Ahmad and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri S.A. Lari
Sri L.K. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.K. Singh
S.C.

U.P.
Zamindari
abolution
and
Land
Reforms,
Act
1951-Section-132
read
with U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act
1963-Section
3
(2)-Land-as
defined
under section 3 (2) of the Consolidation
Act-shall be included in Consolidation
Scheme-as mentioned under 132 of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act-Land covered by
water-recorded as 'Garhi' in revenue
record-can not be part of consolidation
Scheme-general mandamus issued to the
State
Government
to
constituted
a
special investigation team to locate the
plots recorded as Tank, Pakhari water
channel etc. as recorded on 1.6.02 in the
revenue record.-and to take appropriate
steps for compliance of the Apex Court's
direction in Hinch Lal Tiwari case.

Held- Para 13 & 14

In these circumstances, I am of the view
that the State Government may be
directed
to
constitute
a
special
investigation Team to locate the plots
recorded
as
Tank,
Pokhari,
Water
Channels and riverbed etc. on the date of
vesting in every village throughout the
State of Uttar Pradesh and in case it is
found that anyone is in unauthorized
possession of such land mentioned under
Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and
is using these land for any other purpose
other than mentioned under Section 132
of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act State Government
shall take appropriate action forthwith
and restore the same to Gaon Sabha to
maintain the same in the same position
as on 1st July, 1952.