SMT. BEENAKSHI GUPTA versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Smt. Beenakshi Gupta v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1301 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 16256 (3 October 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

C.J's Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL APPEAL NO.1301 OF 2007

Smt. Beenakshi Gupta, W/o Sri Suman Kumar Gupta,

R/o House No.301, Mohalla Buxrian, P.O. Chowk, (Shahjahanpur), District Shahjahanpur

.................... Appellant

Versus

1. State of U.P. through Its Principal Secretary, Shiksha Anubhag-V, Lucknow, U.P.

2. Director, State Council of Educational Research and Training (S.C.E.R.T.), Nishatganj, Lucknow.

3. Director of Education, (Basic), Utter Pradesh, Nishatganj, Lucknow.

4. Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, District Shahjahanpur.

..................... Respondents

*********

Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. Devi Prasad Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. G.C. Upadhyaya (S.C.)

Hon'ble H.L. Gokhale, CJ

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Date : October 3, 2007

Oral Judgement (Per: H.L. Gokhale, C.J.)

1. Heard Mr. Devi Prasad Mishra in support of this appeal.

2. The appellant had applied for selection to Special B.T.C. Course under the advertisement given in the year 2001. The requirement is that the person is to be below 40 years with permissible relaxation of 5 years for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and O.B.C.

3. The appellant claims to be belonging to O.B.C. However, she is 52 years of age. She could not be selected. Her claim was rejected. She had filed a writ petition. The writ petition has been dismissed.

4. In this appeal Mr. Mishra submits that the appellant applied in the year 2001 when she was within the age limit while the selection was set aside and the final order by Apex Court was passed on 4th May 2005.

5. The appellant cannot get any extension on any such ground.

6. The appeal is dismissed.

Date: 03.10.2007

mhu

(Chief Justice)

(Anjani Kumar, J.)

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 |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.