Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SANTOSH KUMAR YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECRETARY (SECONDARY EDUCATION) & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Santosh Kumar Yadav v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary (Secondary Education) & Others - WRIT - A No. - 37814 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 16977 (26 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

Court No. 32

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37814 of 2006

Santosh Kumar Yadav

Vs.

State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2.

Aggrieved by the order dated 20th June 2006 passed by District Inspector of Schools-II, Allahabad whereby he has revoked the proceedings conducted by the Committee of Management, Smt. Shakuntala Devi Yadav Kanya Inter College, Ram Nagar, Allahabad with respect to promotion of class- IV employees in class-III and refusing to approve selection and appointment of petitioner in class-III post, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the same.

It is admitted that the petitioner in the seniority list of Class-IV employees is at serial number 3 and criteria for promotion in class-III under regulations is seniority subject to rejection of unfit. Sri Shiv Shanker Sharma, the senior most class-IV employee is said to lack requisite qualification for promotion to class-III post but the respondent no. 4 Smt. Champa Devi has been excluded from selection on the ground that she has given in writing that she is not inclined to work on class-III post and is not interested in promotion. Consequently, the committee of management selected and recommended petitioner for promotion in class-III post. The respondent no. 4 has disputed the claim of the management that she has given in writing declining promotion to class-III post and submits that the said order is forged as has not been signed by her. Based on the said statement of the respondent no. 4, District Inspector of Schools has passed the impugned order directing the management to make a fresh selection for promotion to class-III post in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any error in the impugned order warranting any interference in this appeal. A finding of fact has been recorded by the District Inspector of schools believing the objection of respondent no. 4 with respect to her alleged disclaimer and there is noting on record to contradict the same or to show that the said finding is perverse.

The writ petition, therefore, is devoid of merit, and, accordingly, dismissed. No Costs.

Dt. 26.10.2007

RPS/PS


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.