Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Smt. Manju Devi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 29325 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 11200 (4 July 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).


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner. Sri Rajesh Yadav appears for the respondent no. 2.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 7.2.2007 passed by the District Magistrate by which the representation submitted by the contesting respondent was allowed.  The case of the petitioner is that the selection of the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra on the complaint of respondent no. 5 was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner is married  and is not living in village in question.  A writ petition was also filed by the contesting respondent Akhilendra Kumar which was disposed of on 12.12.2006  directing the respondent no. 3 to consider and take appropriate decision. The District Magistrate after hearing the parties has considered the report dated 20.3.2007 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate  and came to the conclusion that the petitioner has already married on 24.5.2001 with Atul Kumar and she is living at her husband's place. It was further held that there is no break of  relationship with her husband hence her selection was cancelled.   Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that earlier report is that the petitioner is living with her father in village in question.    

I have considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The District Magistrate has relied on the report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate  dated 20.3.2007 with regard to living of the petitioner.  The petitioner having been married and the finding is that the petitioner is living with her husband. No error can be said to have been committed by the District Magistrate in directing cancellation of selection of the petitioner. The findings recorded by the District Magistrate cannot be said to be perverse or based on no material.  No error has been committed by the District Magistrate in passing the impugned order.

The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.




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


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 |

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