Full Judgment
1. The appellant, who was selected for the post of Shiksha Mitra, had come before this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 07.05.2010, whereby the District Magistrate, Hamirpur has set aside the selection of the appellant for the post of Shiksha Mitra in the Institution in question.
2. Sri L.P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the District Magistrate and the learned Single Judge, who has dismissed the writ petition, both fell in error inasmuch as respondent no.4-Amit Kumar was under age keeping in view the year of recruitment/selection for which the selections were to be held. He submits that the vacancy came into existence on 31.01.2006 and, therefore, the year of recruitment/selection as defined under the relevant Government Order governing such appointment would be the 1st July, 2006, on which date respondent no.4-Amit Kuamr was admittedly less than 18 years of age.
3. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 Mr. Gupta submits that the date of birth of respondent no.4 is 02.03.1989 and the selection was held pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.06.2007, for the session 2007-08 and on that date, respondent no.4 was above 18 years of age according to his date of birth. He contends that on 02.03.2007, respondent no.4 had already completed 18 years of age and the advertisement was made thereafter, hence it cannot be said that the claim of respondent no.4 was illegal. Accordingly, the District Magistrate and the learned Single Judge have arrived at the correct conclusions.
4. The moot question is as to what would be the year of selection/recruitment as contained in Clause-4 of the Government Order dated 01.07.2000. The word 'year of recruitment/selection' has not been defined in the Government Order.
5. Sri Singh, submits that in relation to the employment under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and other provisions, the year of recruitment/selection will be that year in which the vacancy arose. We are unable to accept this submission inasmuch as there is no such provision which may define the year of recruitment/selection to be the same year in which the vacancy arose.
6. The selections in the present case have proceeded upon the advertisement made by the beat of drums on 17.06.2007 against which the appellant and respondent no.4, both had applied. Thus, on the date of advertisement, which was for the session 2007-08, respondent no.4 had already completed 18 years of age, which fact is undisputed. Apart from this, the engagement of a Shiksha Mitra is year wise. No process of selection had been undertaken in the session 2006-07. In such a situation, the year of recruitment/selection cannot be construed to be the year in which the vacancy arose. It has to be the year in which the advertisement has been made for the respective year. Accordingly, in our opinion, the date on which the age of respondent on.4 had to be gauged was 1st July, 2007 on which date he was admittedly above 18 years of age. The said assessment is in accordance with and in tune with Clause -4 of the Government Order referred to hereinabove, and in accordance with the scheme of such selection, which is on annual basis.
7. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the conclusions drawn by the District Magistrate as well as the learned Single Judge do not suffer from any infirmity.
8. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.