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


Rani Sharma v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. - 34643 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 14790 (31 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).


Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.34643 of 2007

Rani Sharma


State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V. K. Shukla, J.

Earlier petitioner had applied for consideration of her candidature for the post of Anganbadi Karyakartri for village and centre Kamora, Block Milak, District Rampur. After she was appointed, complaint was made in respect of her Intermediate mark-sheet. Said mark-sheet was sent for verification and based on the same, petitioner's selection was cancelled on 19.08.2006. Aggrieved, petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 47608 of 2006, Rani Sharma v. State of U.P. and others. On presentation of writ petition, this Court passed following order:

"Petitioner was selected and appointed as Anganbadi Karyakartri for centre Kamora, Tehsil Milakpur, District Rampur. Complaint was received that mark-sheet of Intermediate Examination submitted by the petitioner was forged and fictitious. Qua the same inquiry was made by Regional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Bareilly, and report was submitted that with Roll No.1121345 in the year 1987, petitioner has not at all passed the Intermediate Examination. Based on the said report presumption has been drawn that mark-sheet submitted by the petitioner was fictitious.

Before this Court, petitioner has come with a specific case and has filed the copy of mark-sheet of Intermediate Examination of the year 1987 with Roll No.433260, and submits that she has passed the Intermediate Examination in the year 1987 with Roll No.433260 and not with Roll No.1121345, as alleged in the order dated 19.08.2006.

As the question raised in the instant writ petition requires factual investigation, which can be very well investigated by Regional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Bareilly, as such Regional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Bareilly, is directed to re-examine the matter in the light of the material, which would be furnished by the petitioner, and submit report within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order to Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari, Milak, District Rampur, who shall take fresh decision in the matter. The order dated 19.08.2006 shall abide by final order.

In terms of above observations, writ petition stands disposed of."

Petitioner submits that pursuant to directive issued by this Court, her claim was recognized and order was passed in her faovur by Regional Secretary, Madhyamik Shaksha Parishad, Bareilly, then as directed by this Court, the order dated 19.08.2006 was to be abide by said order, and fresh order was to be passed by Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari. However, in between fresh advertisement has been issued on 05.01.2007, pursuant to which petitioner has also applied, but her claim has been non-suited on 02.06.2007 on the ground that earlier her selection had been cancelled by order dated 19.08.2006. The view taken by means of impugned order prima facie appears to be incorrect view, for the simple reason that after the order passed by this Court dated 31.08.2006, matter of petitioner has been reconsidered by Regional Secretary, Madhyamik Shaksha Parishad, Bareilly, and in the light of the same petitioner's claim was to be reconsidered, but based on earlier cancellation of petitioner's earlier appointment, her claim has been non-suited.

Seeing the nature of controversy and the fact that earlier petitioner's candidature was subject to enquiry of Regional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, matter requires to be reconsidered by District Magistrate, as such liberty is given to the petitioner to represent her claim before the District Magistrate, Rampur, along with a certified copy of this order, within three weeks from today. In the event of any such representation being made, the claim of petitioner shall be adverted to by the said authority, after affording opportunity of hearing to Smt. Manorama Devi, in accordance with law, by means of reasoned and speaking order within next eight weeks, and whatever decision is taken the same be communicated to the petitioner as well as Smt. Manorama Devi.

In terms of above observations, writ petition stands 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.