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


Anita Yadav v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. - 39213 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 14491 (27 August 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 Vineet Saran, J.

I have heard Sri Radhey Shyam Yadav and Prabhat Singh both appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the state-respondents and Sri S.P.Bharti, learned counsel appearing for the contesting Respondent no.6 and have perused the record.

By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus commanding the District Magistrate to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra in the village in question and further not to give appointment to Respondent no.6 who has been duly selected vide resolution dated 16.12.2006. The main ground for challenge to the appointment of Respondent no.6 is that she is not a resident of the village in question and as the petitioner is at serial no.2 in the list dated 16.12.2006, after excluding the Respondent no.6, the petitioner be given such appointment.

The said dispute with regard to the place of residence of the Respondent no.6 had been decided by the Sub Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 26.5.2007 which was challenged by the petitioner (through the same counsel who has filed this writ petition) by means of writ petition no. 34156 of 2007 Anita Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others in which the following order had been passed by this Court on 27.7.2007:-

"Sri Radhey Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

Sri S.P.Bharti, learned counsel for respondent no.5 is present."

This writ petition has been filed without disclosing the fact that the petitioner had filed an earlier writ petition challenging the order with regard to the genuineness of the place of residence of Respondent no.6. The same has been brought to the knowledge of the Court by Sri S.P.Bharti, learned counsel for the Respondent no.6 who has placed before me a copy of the aforesaid writ petition as well as the order dated 27.7.2007 passed therein. It is very unfortunate that a party files successive writ petitions for the same cause of action. It is further more unfortunate that the same counsel appears in the second writ petition. A client can have personal interest in filing successive writ petitions to get some favourable order from the Court without disclosing the fact of having approached the Court earlier for the same cause of action but the conduct of the counsel in filing such successive writ petitions for the same cause of action on behalf of the same party is really unfortunate.

For the foregoing reasons that the petitioner had approached this Court for the same cause of action, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.

dt. 27.8.2007


w.p. 39213 of 2007


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.