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


Vinod Kumar v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 30563 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 11765 (11 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 .

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.




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.