# Smt. Neelu Devi / v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 3 ILRA 958
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-09-08
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 1142 of 2008
- **Bench:** V.M. Sahai, Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-neelu-devi-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41285
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Appointment
of
Shiksha
Mitrapetitioner/Appellant
although
stood
highest in merit-challenged on ground of
her defective application due to want of
domicile certificate-contention regarding
extension of time by village Pradhanillegal
every
application
must
be
supported with domicile certificationrejection order as well as the view taken
by learned Single Judge justified.

Held: Para 6

We accordingly, hold that the submission
of the domicile certificate along with the
application for appointment for Shiksha
Mitra is a must and non submission of
the
same
within
time
renders
the
application form incomplete and liable
for rejection.

## Text

958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
held that the claim petition under Section
163A can be maintainable only in respect
of the victims of motor accident having
annual income maximum upto Rs.40,000.
Therefore, in our opinion, in cases where
the allegations are made that the income
of the victim is more than Rs.40,000 per
annum it is not open for the Tribunal to
entertain the claim petition under Section
163A of the Act, such claim petition can
be maintainable under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, thus, it is not open for
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to
take advantage of Second Schedule of the
Motor Vehicles Act and multiplier used
therein where the income of victims of
motor accident is more than Rs. 40,000
per annum. The multiplier in respect of
age of victims of motor accident has corelation with the income of the victims in
the Second Schedule. Therefore it is not
open for the Claim Tribunals to determine
the annual income of the victim of motor
accident over and above Rs.40,000 and
then apply the multiplier on the basis of
age alone as provided in the Second
Schedule of the Act."

3. We are of the view that such
judgement is not supporting the cause of
the appellant at all. The ratio of the
judgement is that one has to choose as to
whether the application will be filed under
Section 163-A or under Section 166 of the
Act, but both can not be proceeded
simultaneously. In case it is under Section
163-A, limitation will be there but in case
of application under Section 166 to arrive
at a 'just' compensation, the Court has to
consider various factors and arrive at the
same. We are of the view that at the time
of arriving at such finding if the Court
considers various parts of the Schedule as
a guide, the Court is not said to be at fault
in adopting an appropriate process for the
purpose of arriving at compensation. The
Court can not limit itself in such
circumstance as because principle of
structured formula under Section 163-A
has been applied. The Court is compelled
to arrive at 'just' compensation. There is
no question of limit of compensation upto
Rs.40,000/-
in
such
circumstance.
Submission appears to be misconceived in
nature.

4. Therefore, in totality we do not
find any ground for the purpose of
admitting the appeal. Hence, the appeal is
dismissed at the stage of admission,
however, without imposing any cost.

5. Incidentally, the appellantInsurance Company prayed that the
statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- made
before this Court for preferring this appeal
be remitted back to the concerned Motor
Accidents
Claims
Tribunal
as
expeditiously as possible in order to
adjust the same with the amount of
compensation to be paid to the claimant,
however, such prayer is allowed. Appeal
dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.09.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.M. SAHAI, J.
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 1142 of 2008

Smt. Neelu Devi ...Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Indrasen Singh Tomar
Sri Man Bahadur Singh
3 All] Smt. Neelu Devi V. State of U.P. and others
959
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anuj Kumar
Sri Jagdish Pathak
Sri Tej Bhan Singh
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Appointment
of
Shiksha
Mitrapetitioner/Appellant
although
stood
highest in merit-challenged on ground of
her defective application due to want of
domicile certificate-contention regarding
extension of time by village Pradhanillegal
every
application
must
be
supported with domicile certificationrejection order as well as the view taken
by learned Single Judge justified.

Held: Para 6

We accordingly, hold that the submission
of the domicile certificate along with the
application for appointment for Shiksha
Mitra is a must and non submission of
the
same
within
time
renders
the
application form incomplete and liable
for rejection.

(Delivered by Hon'ble V.M. Sahai, J.)

1. We have heard Sri Man Bahadur
Singh learned counsel for the appellant,
learned Standing counsel for respondents
no. 1 to 4, Sri Anuj Kumar for respondent
no. 5, Sri Jagdish Pathak learned counsel
appearing for respondent no. 6 and Sri Tej
Bhan Singh, learned counsel appearing
for respondent no. 7.

2. A single post of Shiksha Mitra of
Prathamic
Vidhyalaya
Sikandarpur
Aaima, block Mahrajganj, Tehsil Sagari
district Azamgarh was advertised on 24th
December 2006. The last date of
submitting the application form complete
in all respect was 24.1.2007. Three
candidates including the appellant Smt.
Neelu Devi and the respondent no. 6 Smt.
Saroj Yadav applied within time. Smt.
Neelu Devi submitted her application
form in the prescribed proforma on
22.1.2007 but without annexing the copy
of the domicile certificate. On her
application seeking time for submitting
such
certificate
the
Gram
Pradhan
allowed her time uptil 30.1.2007 to
submit the domicile certificate. She
obtained domicile certificate on 27.1.2007
certifying that she is resident of the
village concerned and the said certificate
was presented and taken on record on the
same day. In the selection, she secured
higher marks and was selected. Her name
was recommended for appointment as
Shiksha Mitra by the Gram Shiksha
Samiti and the same was approved by the
District Level Committee also. Aggrieved
by her selection, Smt. Saroj Yadav filed
writ petition no. 11624 of 2008 which was
disposed of with the direction to the
District
Magistrate
to
consider
the
grievance of Smt. Saroj Yadav by a
speaking order. In pursuance thereof after
hearing the parties concerned and calling
for the report of the Basic Shiksha
Adhikari, the District Magistrate vide
order
dated
6.6.2008
allowed
the
representation of Smt. Saroj Yadav and
held that the application form of Smt.
Neelu Devi was incomplete as it was not
accompanied by the domicile certificate
and as such her candidature was not valid.

3. The above order of the District
Magistrate
was
challenged
by
the
appellant Smt. Neelu Devi by filing writ
petition no. 31675 of 2008. The petition
was dismissed by learned Single Judge
vide judgment and order dated 20.8.2008
which has been impugned in the present
special appeal.
960 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
4. The first submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant is that
the
appellant
Smt.
Neelu
Devi's
candidature could not have been rejected
by the District Magistrate on the ground
that her application form was incomplete.
She had submitted the domicile certificate
though after expiry of the last date for
submitting the application form, but
within time allowed by the Gram Pradhan
who happens to be the member of the
Gram Shiksha Samiti. This submission
can not be accepted for the reason that the
authority to accept the application form
and to recommend the name of selected
candidate for appointment as Shiksha
Mitra under the scheme dated 1.7.2000 as
amended from time to time vests with the
Gram Shiksha Samiti. The Gram Pradhan
personally or in his capacity as the
President or the member of the Gram
Shiksha Samiti has no authority of law to
extend the time for submitting the
application
form
or
the
documents/certificates in support thereof.
Admittedly, no extra time was given by
the Gram Shiksha Samiti to the appellant
for submitting the domicile certificate.
Therefore, when on the last date of
submitting the application forms the
appellant's application was in complete it
was liable to be rejected as per para 7
(Da) of the amended scheme dated
10.10.2005. The scheme categorically
provides
that
all
required
documents/certificates must be annexed
along with the application form and that
no extra time will be provided for the
purpose. Therefore, the time schedule for
submitting the application forms is
required to be strictly followed without
any deviation and the purpose being to
avoid chaos and chances of large scale
manipulations.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant
next submitted that under the scheme
there is no specific provision requiring
submission of the domicile certificate
with the application form and therefore
the rejection of the candidature of the
appellant Smt. Neelu Devi is wholly
illegal. A perusal of the scheme for
Shiksha Mitra reveals that it is not a
scheme for employment but a scheme to
provide education to the illiterate class of
villagers. The scheme envisages for
giving preference for appointments of
Shiksha Mitra to the persons who are
resident
of
the
village
concerned.
Therefore, to verify the place of residence
of the candidate, a domicile certificate
issued
by
the
competent
authority
certifying
the
candidates
place
of
residence
appears
to
be
necessary.
Therefore, even if in the amended scheme
there is no specific reference that the
candidate has to submit a domicile
certificate along with the application
form, nonetheless in view of the object of
the scheme and the language of the
advertisement the submission of all
certificates including domicile candidates
is mandatory.

6. We accordingly, hold that the
submission of the domicile certificate
along
with
the
application
for
appointment for Shiksha Mitra is a must
and non submission of the same within
time
renders
the
application
form
incomplete and liable for rejection.

7. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we are of the opinion that the
learned Single Judge has not erred in
dismissing the writ petition of the
appellant.
3 All] Sri Ran Swaroop Kainthola V. Director of Education and others
961
Accordingly, the appeal fails and is
dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED; ALLAHABAD 11.09.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S. RAFAT ALAM, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 80 of 1998

Sri Ram Swaroop Kainthola ...Appellant
Versus
Director of Education (Secondary) U.P.
Allahabad and others
...Respondents

Counsel for Appellant:
Sri Rakesh Thapliyal
Sri Deepak Jaiswal
Sri Narendra Mohan
Sri Santosh Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Shrikant Shukla
Sri B.D. Upadhyaya

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 192Chapter II Regulation 3 (1)(b)-Senioritydate of appointment of petitioner and
respondent no. 4 in C.T. Grade is sameR-4 promoted in L.T. grade on 26.4.90
while petitioner after completion of 10
years service given the benefit of L.T.
grade salary only on 9.1.95-held-getting
salary in particular pay scale can not be
treated validly appointed-even otherwise
R-4 was treated senior to the petitioner
at every stage-never questioned by the
petitioner-No occasion to claim seniority
against R-4.

Held: Para 7

To the same effect is the view taken in
Virendra Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and
others, 1994(24) ALR 19 and Km. Sheela
Sanyal Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1995
ALJ 589. A Single Judge of this Court
(Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J., as His
Lordship then was) in Madan Gopal
Agrawal Vs. The District Inspector of
Schools, Bijnor and others, 1996 (3) ESC
202 after referring to the relevant
Government Orders said that grant of
L.T.
grade
under
the
aforesaid
Government Orders is personal and it
does not mean holding of a post in L.T.
grade inasmuch as, when such person
would retire it would result in a vacancy
in C.T. grade and not in L.T. grade. The
incumbent cannot be said to hold post of
Assistant Teacher in L.T. grade. Another
Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble
Ashok Bhushan, J.) in Writ Petition No.
39731 of 2000, Ansal Lal Jha Vs. District
Inspector
of
Schools,
Badaun
and
another, decided on 13.02.2006 has
followed the same. Besides, one of us
(Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.) has also
taken the same view in Smt. Bharti Roy
Vs. Deputy Director of Education II,
Kanpur and others, 2008(2) ESC 911. We
are in respectfully agreement with the
view taken in the aforesaid judgements.
Since the petitioner was never appointed
in L.T. grade but was only granted said
pay scale as per the Government Order
dated 03.06.1989, it is evident that he
has no occasion to claim seniority over
respondent
no.
4
who
has
been
promoted in L.T. grade and that too on
regular basis w.e.f. 30.06.1996.
Case law discussed:
1993 (2) ESC 456, 1994(24) ALR 19, 1995 ALJ
589, 1996 (3) ESC 202, Writ Petition No.
39731 of 2000, 2008(2) ESC 911

(Delivered by Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.)

1. This matter has been listed for
orders
with
the
office
note
dated
10.07.2007. We are of the view that the
notice sent to respondent no. 3 shall be
deemed to have served in view of the
provisions contained under Chapter VIII,
Rule12, Explanation II of the High Court
Rules. However, on the request made by
learned counsel for the parties the appeal