Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KM. VEENA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Km. Veena v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 67870 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 21199 (15 December 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. 67870 of 2006

Km. Veena

  Vs.

State of U.P.  and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner was appointed as Anganbadi Karyakrtri at Sudhiyal Centre on an honorarium of Rs.500/ per month. She applied for selection and appointment as Shikshamitra and completed one month's training, and after completion of training she did not join as Shikshamitra, and continued to serve as Anganbadi Karyakrtri. Services of petitioner have been dispensed with on the ground that petitioner accepted another assignment of Shikshamitra. Petitioner had earlier approached this court by means of writ petition No.54606 of 2006, and this Court had asked the District Magistrate, Aligarh to look into the grievance of petitioner, and thereafter order impugned dated 08.11.2006 has been passed.

Sri Jitendra Pal Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case claim of petitioner has not been considered and adverted to in its correct perspective and the writ petition is liable to be allowed.

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that cogent reasons have been given for rejecting the claim of petitioner, which warrants no interference by this Court, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

After respective arguments have been advanced, the factual position which emerges is to the effect that petitioner who had been functioning as  Anganbadi karyakartri, applied for appointment as Shikshamitra and even completed training without apprising the authorities concerned and without taking any valid leave, and as such her services have been dispensed with, on this ground. Petitioner has set up a totally false and fictitious claim that pressure was being exerted on her and she had tendered her resignation. Not only this, fictitious theory of illegal gratification was also set up. The authorities concerned have found the claim of petitioner untruthful, and in this background, once petitioner proceeded for one month's training without any leave and without information and set up totally false and fictitious theory, as such it cannot be said that there is any error in the opinion which has been formed by the District Magistrate, Aligarh.  

Consequently, writ petition lacks substance, and the same is dismissed.  

15.12.2006

SRY


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.