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


Smt. Yashoda Devi v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 1625 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 28 (1 January 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.32

Special Appeal No.1625 of 2006

Smt. Yashoda Devi v. State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

This special appeal, under the Rules of the Court, is preferred against the judgment dated 12.10.2006 of the Hon'ble Single Judge dismissing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.56498 of 2006 of the petitioner-appellant.

Heard Shri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri G.K. Maurya, Advocate holding brief of Shri Satyendra Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and perused the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge.

It is contended that the Government Order dated 16.2.2003 provides 100% reservation to the women and thus, the selection of respondent no.4 on the post of Aanganbari Karyakatri is illegal.  We are not convinced with the submission for two reasons.  Firstly, that the aforesaid Government Order has not been challenged by the petitioner-appellant either in the writ petition or in the appeal.  Secondly, the aforesaid Government Order provides that amongst all eligible persons the widow, resident of some village, shall be given preference and appointment in absence of such a candidate further other candidate shall be considered. It is not in dispute that under Article 15 (4) of the Constitution special provision can be made for women and, in our view, the special provision made in respect to widow cannot be said to be ex facie arbitrary, since the widows constitutes a class by themselves and special provision can be made for their benefit.  Thus, in the facts of the case, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived and untenable.

The appeal, being without merit, is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.




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.