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


Diwakar Chaubey v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary Basic Education And Others - WRIT - A No. 3366 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 1258 (22 January 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).


Court No.39

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3366 of 2007

Diwaker Chaubey Vs. State of U.P.  and others.


Hon. Ran Vijai Singh,J.

The petitioner, who happened to be a candidate  for selection on the post of Shiksha Mitra pursuant to the advertisment  dated 16.3.2006 issued by Special Basic Shiksha Adhikari Mirzapur,  has filed the present writ petition  with the following prayers:-

a. " To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing   the impugned selection list dated 05.04.2006 (Annexure No. '5' to the writ petition ) for the post  of Shiksha Mitra passed by the Gram Shiksha Samiti with all its consequential effects, in pursuance of the resolution  dated 28.3.2006 (Annexue No. '4' to the writ petition).

b. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature  of mandamus to join the petitioner   for the post of the  Shiksha Mitra, in pursuance of the earlier resolution dated 28.03.2006.

c. To issue  any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstance of the case.

d. To award the cost  of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner."

By the impugned order  one Smt. Sandhya Sharma  has been appointed  as Shiksha Mitra  in Junior Basic School, Gogahara  as reserved  category female candidate. The case of the petitioner is that since on the earlier occasions two posts  of Shiksha Mitra were filled up from Mahila category, therefore, pursuant to the present  advertisement  against the  existing vacancy only candidate belong to the Male category  could be appointed  and in not doing so, the village level committee  has committed manifest error  of law. In this regard the petitioner has already made a representation  to the District Magistrate for redressal of his grievance  pursuant  to the Government Order dated.2.5.2000.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State  respondents, Sri C.K.Rai , learned Counsel for  respondent No.3 and Sri Anuj Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent No.5.

By the consent of counsel for the parties the writ petition is decided finally with the observation that the  petitioner may file fresh representation before the  District Magistrate, respondent No.2. In case any such representation is filed, it may be decided  by respondent No.2  by a speaking order after hearing respondents No. 4,5 and 6, if possible, within two months from the date of receipt of the representation. The petitioner will file certified copy of this order, other necessary documents and a duly stamped self-addressed envelope along with the representation. The respondent No.2 after taking decision will communicate the same to the petitioner.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.




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.