High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Vinod Kumar v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 30563 of 2007  RD-AH 11765 (11 July 2007)
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner .
By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 26.6.2007 passed by the District Magistrate by which order the District Magistrate has cancelled the selection of the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra. After the selection of the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra a complaint was filed that the petitioner has obtained his appointment by submitting the certificates of his brother Vinod Kumar. Writ petition No. 7381 of 2007 was filed by Kunj Behari - respondent no. 5 which was disposed of by this Court directing the District Magistrate to consider and decide the dispute. The District Magistrate issued notice to the petitioner, Kunj Behari and the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The District Magistrate held that the petitioner's real name is Pramod Kumar son of Ram Badan and he has filed certificates of Vinod Kumar who is real brother. A report was also obtained from the police station Khalilabad and after considering the voter list and other materials including the report of the Naib Tahsildar the District Magistrate has come to the finding that the petitioner has obtained appointment illegally by submitting certificates of his brother. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that the petitioner's real name is Vinod Kumar although he has also been called as Promod Kumar. He further contended that no proper enquiry was held. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied that Vinod Kumar is his brother who is employed out side the State. The District Magistrate after hearing the petitioner as well as the complainant and Basic Shiksha Adhikari has recorded finding of fact that the petitioner is not Vinod Kumar but he is Pramod Kumar. It has been found by the District Magistrate that Vinod Kumar whose certificates have been used, is doing job at Maharastra. The finding recorded by the District Magistrate for cancelling the selection of the petitioner cannot be said to be perverse and without basis. The finding recorded by the District Magistrate is finding of fact and this Court cannot appraise the finding as appellate authority. The District Magistrate has not committed any error in cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. The submission of the petitioner that the enquiry was not properly held cannot be accepted. The order impugned refers the report of the police station as well as the report of the Naib Tahsildar. The District Magistrate has also given personal hearing and relied on all those reports. There is no error in the order warranting interference by this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.