Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUMAN MISRA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Suman Misra v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 3615 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 1367 (24 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon. Ran Vijai Singh,J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner  for cancelling the appointment of respondent No.6, Smt. Poonam Devi Sharma. The case of the petitioner is that  she was also candidate on the post of Shiksha Mitra pursuant to the advertisement dated 8.11.2005 and she has also been selected  completed her training.  Counsel for the petitioner further submitted  that the certificate of Anaupcharik Shiksha  issued  in favour of respondent No.6 is forged and in this regard petitioner  has given a representation to the District Magistrate. Pursuant  to the same an  enquiry  was made by the Assistant Basic Education Officer and it was found  that the certificate issued in favour of respondent  No.6 is forged inspite  of that no steps  have been taken by the respondents cancelling her appointment. In this regard she has  also given representation  on 10.12.2006 but the same has not  been decided as yet. Hence the present writ petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel, Sri V.K.Singh,  learned counsel appearing  for respondent No.5, Sri  R.K.Srivastava,  learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and lSri  Hari Pratap Gupta, learned  Counsel  appearing for  respondent No.6.

Considering the facts and  circumstances of the case, it is provided that the petitioner may file   fresh representation before respondent No.2 In case any such representation is filed, it may be decided  by respondent No.2  by a speaking order, if possible, within two months from the date of receipt of the representation after hearing all concerned. 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.

Dt.24.1.2007

Rkb.3615/07


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.