Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJENDRA PRASAD PAL versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rajendra Prasad Pal v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 16726 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 10063 (24 May 2007)

 

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. 39

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16726 of 2007

Rajendra Prasad Pal

Versus

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner has approached this court questioning the validity of the decision dated 19.2.2007 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur cancelling the appointment which was accorded to petitioner on 14.9.1998 on compassionate ground.

Brief background of the case as mentioned by petitioner is that petitioner's father  late  Sarvajeet  was working as Assistant teacher in Primary School  Godhoo, Rampur, District Jaunpur from 4.10.1968 to 24.9.1973.  Late Sarvajeet died in harness on 25.9.1973. Petitioner submits that his father's name is  Late Sarvajeet and mother,s name is  Smt. Premawati. Petitioner has contended that his date of birth is 6.5.1974. Petitioner has further contended that after death of Late  Sarvajeet, his mother Smt. Premawati had applied for compassionate appointment  on 25.1.1983. Petitioner has contended that his mother,s claim was registered for according preference. Petitioner has contended that mother of petitioner Smt. Premawati filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19738 of 1989 wherein this court on 21.12.1989 pass order either to  offer appointment to her or to show cause. It has been contended that said writ petition was finally decided on 10.7.1997. Petitioner has contended that by that time he became major and as such petitioner's mother Smt. Premawati requested for appointment  of petitioner in her place, which was  considered by the authority concerned and on 14.9.1998 petitioner was offered appointment. Petitioner has contended that thereafter he had been performing and discharging his duty and has been accorded trained pay scale also. Petitioner has contended that   thereafter on 5.11.2006, his salary was  sought to be withheld. Petitioner has filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11563 of 2006 and this court on 28.2.2006 asked the authority concerned to decide the matter within  the time prescribed.  As no decision has been taken, then Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 5408 of 2006 had been filed. Petitioner submits that after issuance of the notice, impugned order in question has been passed.

On the presentation of the writ petition, this court on 2.4.2007 passed order, which is being extracted below:-

"Supplementary affidavit filed today, same be accepted and taken on record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. at Allahabad through its Secretary as respondent no.4 in the array of the respondents.

Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2,, and Sri P.D. Tripathi, has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent nos 3 and 4.

Each one of the respondents is granted a month time to file counter affidavit.

List on 8.5.2007.

It has been contended by petitioner that he has never taken admission at Kumar Krishak Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Katiraon, District Varanasi and Sri Sarju Prasad Inter College, Katiraon, District Varanasi. Petitioner has contended that he has never undertaken High School Examination, 1996 from Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. at Allahabad with Roll No. 1954905. In this background, petitioner submits that order, which has been passed by District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur is based on totally incorrect appreciation of the fact it has been contended that Smt. Dharma Devi is not at all wife of Sarvajeet.

In this background, it would be expedient and necessary to call for entire record from Regional Office of Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad at Varanasi in respect of High School Examination, 1996 with Roll No. 1954905. Apart from this , relevant record on the basis of which decision has been taken by District Basic Education Officer, Varanasi dated 19.2. 2007  be also produced before this Court.

Certified copy of the order be supplied to Sri P.D. Tripathi as well as learned Standing Counsel for taking necessary steps in this respect.

On the matter being taken up today, relevant record has been produced.

Sri Kshetresh  Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that entire opinion, which have been formed, is totally incorrect opinion, and at no point of time, any fraud has been  committed by petitioner and as such impugned order is liable to be quashed.

Sri P.D. Tripathi, Advocate on the other hand contended that it is glaring case of fraud and manipulation and by no stretch of imagination after the death of his father, after 25 years compassionate appointment could have been provided, as such no interference be made, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed factual position, which is emerging in the present is that even accepting,  case of petitioner that petitioner's father had died on 24.5.1973, petitioner had been offered appointment on compassionate  basis on 14.9.1998 i.e. after more than 25 years from the date of death of late Sarvajeet.  By no stretch of imagination  after 25 years compassionate appointment could have been offered  as this is not at all the objective and purpose of providing appointment instead of accepting this fact, that Indrajeet  Pal is his father. This  is a glaring case of fraud and manipulation. Petitioner has accepted that Sri Indrajeet Pal is his real uncle. In High School examination of the year 1996 with Roll No.  1954905 Rajendra Prasad Pal son of Indrajeet Pal has appeared as private candidate and has failed. Petitioner  has  accepted on specific query being made  that  his uncle  Indrajeet Pal has no son in the name of Rajendra. Petitioner in the entire body of writ petition, has miserably failed to point out that where Smt. Prema Devi as per his  allegation his real mother is residing  , at the current moment whether she is dead or alive. Petitioner has miserably failed to explain, as to who is the father of Smt. Munni Devi, who is said to be born out of wedlock of Late Sarvajeet, qua whom it has been mentioned, that she was in the womb , of her mother when Late Sarvajeet died. Petitioner claims that he was in the womb of his mother, when death of Late Sarvajeet took place on 25.9.1973, and he was born on 6.5.1974, whereas specific name had been given that it was Smt. Munni Devi, who was born, and she is married and staying at her in laws place. No dispute being raised, in this regard, the circumstances are speaking for itself. Once this is the position, then in this background opinion, which have been formed by the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur that fraud has been committed in the matter of claiming compassionate appointment, is apparent. In these circumstances, there is no occasion to interfere with the impugned order of the District Basic Education Officer, inasmuch as, any interference with the said impugned order would amount restoration of another illegal order i.e. to provide compassionate appointment to an incumbent after 25 years of death. Specific direction has been given for lodging First information report . After first information Report is lodged, the Investigating Officer shall also examine the documents, filed by petitioner in the shape of educational testimonials.

Consequently, writ petition lacks substance and same is dismissed.

24.5.2007

T.S.

                                                                     

                                                                                         


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.