JUDGMENT A.P. Sahi, J.
1. Heard Sri M.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. A supplementary-affidavit has been filed today bringing on record the documents pertaining to the selection proceedings which also indicates the inter se merit of the candidates who had applied for the post in question. From a perusal thereof, it is evident that the merit of the respondent No. 5 - Km. Sadhna Maurya is calculated at 63.93 whereas that of the petitioner Savitri Devi is 56.85.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Government Order under which the appointment is being made, cnamely dated 26.5.1999, copy whereof has been appended as Annexure-5 to the writ petition stipulates that the person applying as a candidate for Shiksha Mitra should be a resident of the same revenue village in which the institution is situate. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to Clause 3 (Ba) of the said Government Order and has urgedthat since the petitioner's merit in village Savaiya is highest where the institution is situate, therefore, the selection of the crespondent - Sadhna Maurya is invalid as she belongs to village Agahua which is a different revenue village.
4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel urged that the Government Order does not stipulate the availability of a candidate only from a revenue village but from the Gram Sabha concerned and.the attention of the Court has been invited to Clause (1) of the Government Order. A perusal thereof indicates that the selection of the candidates has to be made from amongst all the candidates of Gram Sabha concerned which can also include more than one village. In the present case the situation is the same. Gram Sabha Agahua consists of revenue village Agahua as well as revenue village Savaiya about which there is no dispute. Thus, the institution in question where appointment has to be made is situate within the Gram Sabha Agahua, as such, all the candidates available within the said Gram Sabha are entitled to apply for. appointment as Shiksha Mitra. The aforesaid stand taken by the learned Standing Counsel is further fortified by the recital in Clause 3 (Ba) relied upon by the petitioner which further states that in the event of non availability of a candidate from the village concerned, a candidate from the Nyay Panchayat within which the village is situate shall be considered.
5. In view of the aforesaid recital made in the Government Order, it is obvious that every candidate who is entitled to apply for the post of Shiksha Mitra, should belong to and be a resident of the Gram Sabha concerned.
6. The zone of consideration is limited to the entire Gram Sabha which may constitute of more than one revenue village. A candidate of a different Gram Sabha, cannot be an applicant for an institution which is not situate in a Gram Sabha to which the candidate belongs to. The only exception carved out is that in the event a suitable candidate is not available within the Gram Sabha concerned, then in that event, the zone of consideration would stand extended to the limits of the Nyaya Panchayat concerned, which includes more than one Gram Sabhas. There is nothing in the government Order which may suggest confining the eligibility to candidates of only the same village where the institution is situate even if the Gram Sabha has more than one revenue village within its fold. This, in my opinion, would be the correct position in law; All eligible candidates of the same Gram Sabha would be entitled to claim appointment even if they belong to different revenue villages within the same Gram Sabha.
7. The argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, misconceived and, as such, is liable to be rejected.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances and in view of the fact that the respondent No. 5 is higher in merit, the writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.