Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70374 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 28702 of 2008 Petitioner :- Smt. Vandana Mishra Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra P. Srivastava,Govind Saran,J.P.Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akhilesh Kumar,Govind Saran,H.K. Shukla,H.K.Mishra,Sadhana Singh,Uma Nath Pandey Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. None present on behalf of the petitioner. Sri B.M.Shukla, learned Standing Counsel is present. 2. Petitioner has challenged an order dated 5.6.2008, whereby her candidature was rejected and respondent no.5 was appointed as Shiksha Mitra. 3. This Court has passed following order on 19.6.2008: " Heard. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the learned Standing Counsel. Sri Akhilesh Kumar has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.4. Issue notice to respondent no.5. Let the counter affidavit be filed within six weeks. Petitioner will have two weeks' time thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List in the third week of August, 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the candidature of petitioner for selection as Shiksha Mitra in the concerned village was excluded from consideration by the District Magistrate, Basti, though detailed submissions have been put-forth by the petitioner before him, but he relied upon a vague and cryptic report of the Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari and passed the impugned order. The petitioner is residing in the same village from where she has been selected as Shiksha Mitra. Till the next date of listing, the operation of the impugned order dated 5th June, 2008 shall remain stayed." 4. Respondent no.5 has filed counter affidavit, however her advocate is also not present. 5. In the counter affidavit it has been mentioned that petitioner was never working as Shiksha Mitra and in pursuance of impugned order said respondent was sent for training, but due to interim order, she was stopped. 6. Learned Standing Counsel referred counter affidavit filed by the State that quality point marks of the petitioner was higher than the respondent, but when it was found that petitioner got married with Sri Shiv Sampatti Mishra, resident of a different village and reliance was placed on a marriage certificate, his appointment was cancelled. 7. I have considered the above submissions and it appears that petitioner has not disclosed correct facts. However, at this stage it cannot be disputed that petitioner must have been enjoying the interim order passed by this Court for last more than 17 years and presently she must be around 41-42 years, therefore, at this stage to interfere with her appointment would be against the interest of justice, therefore, on the basis of interim order passed by this Court earlier, this writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 SB Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad