High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Radha Devi Shukla v. State Of U.P. And Others. - WRIT - A No. - 10372 of 1994  RD-AH 17706 (13 November 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. 26
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10372 of 1994
Smt. Radha Devi Shukla
State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.
Petitioner was selected for training of Female Basic Health Worker of batch commencing from January, 1984. She, pursuant to her selection and information dated 01.01.1984 sent by Chief Medical Officer, Etawah, reported for training at Training Centre Etawah. While petitioner was pursing her second year training course, she, on 23.01.1985, was asked to leave the hostel. Petitioner has contended that she had been pursuing the authorities concerned for permission to complete her training, and ultimately, her request was accepted and she was permitted to complete the training in August, 1990. Petitioner submits that in spite of the fact that she had completed training, no work was assigned to her and on 30.11.1993 an order was passed that as there was ban, her claim would be considered after the ban was lifted.
This Court on presentation of writ petition on 23.03.1994 passed following interim order:
"Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted six weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Petitioner will have three weeks thereafter to file a rejoinder affidavit.
List this petition immediately thereafter.
Meanwhile since petitioner was selected for training in 1984 and her case is that she was wrongfully denied the opportunity to pass the examination within a reasonable time and as she has now passed examination, she is entitled for the appointment, along with her batch mate.
Considering facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to appoint petitioner within a period of six weeks or to show cause."
Petitioner claims that she has been offered appointment pursuant to directives issued by this Court and she has been performing and discharging duties.
At the point of time when the matter has been taken up, only submission raised on behalf of petitioner is that as she was illegally prevented from completing her training, as such she is entitled to be extended entire benefits with effect from January, 1984. In the present case, petitioner was prevented from completing training vide letter dated 23.01.1985, and thereafter she was accorded permission to undertake said examination by means of letter sent in August, 1990. The petitioner was entitled for appointment only after completing the training and once petitioner has completed training in 1990, then petitioner cannot be presumed to have completed training in 1984, as such benefit of appointment since 1984 cannot be extended to the petitioner. As far as seniority is concerned, same shall be considered in accordance with law.
Consequently, writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.