Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NIGHAT SULTANA versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Nighat Sultana v. State Of U.P. & Another - WRIT - A No. 24158 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 8801 (2 May 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.6

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24158 of  2006

Nighat Sultana (Smt.).....................................................Petitioner

Versus

State  of U.P. and another...........................................Respondents.

********

Hon. Tarun Agarwala,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

It transpires that an advertisement was published in the year 1995 for appointment on two posts of Assistant Teacher in Urdu. The petitioner alleges that he was selected but was not issued an appointment letter on account of the fact that he should not produce the admit card that was supplied to him for sitting in the examination. It transpires, that similarly situated candidates who could not produce the admit card and who were not issued the appointment letters had filed Writ Petition No.30762 of 1996, which was allowed by the Court on 25.5.2000. It is also alleged  that thereafter a Special Leave Petition was filed which was dismissed and eventually contempt proceedings were initiated. It further transpires, that pursuant to the judgment of the Court dated 25.5.2000, an advertisement was issued in the year 2004 by the authorities intimating the applicants to come forward with necessary proof so that the appointment letters could be issued.  It further transpires, that some of the aggrieved candidates again filed Writ Petition Nos.11442 of 2005, 35711 of 2005 and 48986 of 2005 in which a direction was issued by the Court by judgment dated 17.4.2006 directing the candidature of those petitioners to be verified  from the record of S.A.M. Inter College, Saharanpur.

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying that similar directions be issued to the authorities  as contained in the order dated 17.4.2006 ,on the ground, that he is also one of those similarly situated persons who have not been issued the appointment letters on the ground, that he did not possess the admit card and that the examination center of the petitioner was also the same as contained in the judgment dated 17.4.2006.

In the opinion of the Court, no such direction can be issued at this stage. When the petitioner was refused an appointment of an Assistant Teacher in the year 1995, he did not stir in the matter. The petitioner also did not join the issue with the other candidates when the contempt proceedings were filed. The petitioner did not file any writ petition when he could not comply with the directions contained  in the advertisement which was issued in the year 2004. Consequently, now in the year 2006, the petitioner cannot be given an appointment for the selection which were held in the year 1995.

The writ petition is belated and is dismissed summarily.

Dated:2.5.2006

AKJ


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.