Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DHARMENDRA SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dharmendra Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 798 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 15924 (24 September 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 AT ALLAHABAD

"CJ's Court"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Special Appeal (Defective) No. 798 OF 2007.

1. Dharmendra Singh, S/o Sri Rajendra Singh,

R/o village Patti, Post Vinaura, District Kannauj.

Versus

1. State of U.P., through its Secretary, Child

Nourishments and Development Department,

U.P. Govt., Lucknow.

2. Zila Siksha Samiti, through its President/District

Magistrate, Kannauj.

3. Gram Shiksha Samiti, through its Chairman Gram

Panchayat Patti (Tilsara), Block Umarda, Tehsil

Titra, District - Kannauj.

4. Zila Basic Siksha Adhikari, Kannauj.

5. Assistant Basic Education Officer, Kannauj.

6. Rajani Shukla, W/o Late Atul Kumar Shukla,

R/o village Turkipurva Chhaittar Singh Block

Auraiya, District Auraiya.

***********

Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. K.S. Rathor

Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. G.C. Upadhyaya

(Standing Counsel)

Hon'ble H.L. Gokhale, CJ.

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Date: September 24, 2007.

Oral Judgement (Per : H.L. Gokhale, CJ)

1. Heard Mr. K.S. Rathor in support of this appeal.

2. The appellant-petitioner was one of the candidates for the post of 'Shiksha Mitra' in the village where the respondent no. 6 has been selected. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the post in question is in district Kannauj and since the respondent no. 6, the contesting respondent was married to a person in district Auraiya, she could not be considered on the said post.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case that the respondent no. 6 is a widow and after the death of her husband, she is living with her parents in district Kannauj. This being the position, there is nothing wrong in her application being considered. The learned single Judge was therefore right in dismissing the writ petition.

4. The special appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Date : 24.09.2007.

Rks.

(Chief Justice)

(Anjani Kumar, J.)


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.