Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. PHOOLMATI AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Phoolmati And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 5966 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 2548 (1 February 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

HON. ARUN TANDON, J.

Petitioners who have been appointed as Anganbari Karyakarti are aggrieved by an order dated 30.12.2005 passed by the District Programme Officer, Azamgarh.  Under the impugned order the appointment of the petitioners as Anganbari Kartyakarti has been cancelled on the ground that in the enquiry  conducted under orders of the Chief Development Officer, Azamgarh dated 30.12.2005. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Azamgarh has  reported that appointments have been offered to Anganbari Karyakarti (including the petitioner) on the basis of fraudulent documents and forged proceedings. Basically  the ground for challenge isthat the appointments have been offered to the petitioner in accordance with law the petitioners are not widow and lastly  no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioners before passing the order.

In the opinion  of the Court the issue as to whether  the appointments offered  to  the  petitioner  on  the basis of fraudulent documents/forged documents  or not is a matter to be considered by the authorities themselves at the first instance and, therefore, it would be appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioners to make a representation ventilating all their grievances against the order impugned, before the District Magistrate, Azamgarh, with two weeks from today supported by such documents qua their appointments being  in accordance with law.

The District Magistrate on receipt of  representation  shall call for the records and shall satisfy himself as to whether the petitioners have been appointed after following the due procedure and as to whether any fraud has been played in respect of  their appointment or not. The District Magistrate shall pass a reasoned speaking order strictly in accordance with law preferably within four weeks from the date the representation is so filed. Writ petition is disposed of.

Dated:1.2.2006

V.R./5966/06


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.