Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KAMLESH DEVI versus D.M., CHANDAULI AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kamlesh Devi v. D.M., Chandauli And Another - WRIT - A No. 64399 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 20212 (29 November 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64399 of 2006

Kamlesh Devi

Versus

State of U.P & others

&

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64791 of 2006

Sunita Devi

Versus

State of U.P & others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

In both the writ petitions order dated 09.11.2006 passed by District Magistrate, Chandauli is subject of matter of challenge.

Smt. Kamlesh Devi, petitioner of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64399 of 2006 has contended that not even a single penny she is getting by way of maintenance allowance from her husband and unnecessarily presumption has been drawn qua getting of maintenance allowance by her, and coupled with this it has been contended that she hails from below poverty line category and in this regard income certificate has been issued in her favour by the Tehsildar, Sakaldeeha on 10.11.2005 and all these important aspect of the matter has been totally ignored and in mechanical manner directives have been issued to undertake fresh process of selection.

Smt. Sunita Devi petitioner of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64791 of 2006 has contended that Smt. Kamlesh Devi is residence of another village and as she had applied for consideration of her candidature from open category and as her appointment was made on merit as such there was no occasion to cancel her candidature.

After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging is that Smt. Kamlesh Devi applied for consideration of her candidature and similarly Smt. Sunita Devi had also applied for consideration of her candidature for being appointed as Aanganbari Karyakatri. Kamlesh Devi had applied claiming herself to be from below poverty line category and ignoring this aspect of the matter in term of Government Order dated 16.12.2003 Smt Sunita Devi was selected.

This is undisputed that Smt. Kamlesh Devi is not divorced but document shows that she is living separately, and inter se in between her and her husband agreement has been entered into wherein parcel of land has been provided to her and where undertaking has been given that at the time of marriage of her daughter help would be extended to her. Consequently factum of maintenance has been made incorrectly and said presumption based on mere surmises and conjectures. Smt. Kamlesh Devi is from below poverty line. Once her candidature is there and she is residence of the same village wherein appointment is to be made then it was she who was to be offered appointment as in the concerned village there is neither any widow nor any divorced lady available. In case Smt. Kamlesh Devi is not at all residence of the aforesaid village and she does not fall below the poverty line then certainly Smt. Sunita Devi was entitled to be offered appointment.

Here in the present case District Magistrate, Chandauli has not at all adverted to all these important aspect of the matter and has proceeded to cancel the candidature.

Consequently, order dated 09.11.2006 passed by District Magistrate, Chandauli is hereby quashed and set aside. District Magistrate, Chandauli is directed to make inquiry as to whether Smt. Kamlesh Devi falls below the poverty line category candidate or not and she is resident of same village or not and in case she falls below the poverty line and resident of same village and fulfills all requisite eligibility criteria as mentioned then appointment be offered to her and in case she does not fulfill requisite criteria then in that event claim of Smt. Sunita Devi be considered. Said exercise be undertaken within next six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

With above direction both the writ petition are allowed and disposed of.

No orders as to cost.

29.11.2006

Dhruv        


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.