Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NEETA TRIPATHI versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Neeta Tripathi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 31408 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 12013 (16 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Verma, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 7. Sri V.K. Singh has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 4. Learned Standing Counsel  appears on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2.  

By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to select the petitioner for the post of Shiksha Mitra. A further direction has been sought, directing the District Magistrate to hold inquiry regarding selection of Shiksha Mitra in the Gram Panchayat in question.

From the facts brought on record, it is clear that selection took place about a year ago. There are some applications of the petitioner, which has been filed alongwith the writ petition, addressing Additional District Magistrate, Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari and Basic Shiksha Adhikari. It does not appear that petitioner has submitted any representation before the District Magistrate against the selection of Shiksha Mitra, who is the appropriate authority in view of the Government Order dated 2.5.2006. In the above view of the matter, no direction as prayed for, can be issued.

However, considering the facts as brought on record, a liberty is given to the petitioner to make a representation before the District Magistrate within two weeks from today. If such a representation is made, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.  

Dated:  16.7.2007

L.A./-  31408/07


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.