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. Radha Devi v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary & Others - WRIT - A No. 9894 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 3108 (23 February 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).


Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.

In response to an advertisement for appointment of Anganwari Karyakatri for the village in question, the petitioner as well as respondent no. 8 and certain other candidates had applied. It is the case of the petitioner that initially vide select list dated 19.6.2006, the petitioner was declared selected. However, thereafter on 15.7.2006 a fresh select list was declared in which the respondent no. 8 Smt. Savita Chaurasia was declared selected. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the certificate of the respondent no. 8 of being below the poverty line has already been cancelled by the Tahsildar as her income is found to be Rs. 36,000/- per annum and thus her appointment ought to have been cancelled. It has further been submitted that the respondent no. 8 could not be appointed as Anganwari Karyakatri because she is direct relative of the Gram Pradhan. It was lastly submitted that without cancelling the select list dated 19.6.2006, no fresh select list could have been prepared and thus also the petitioner would be entitled to appointment as Anganwari Karyakatri.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that in case if, with regard to her grievances made in this writ petition, the petitioner  files a fresh comprehensive representation before the respondent no.3, the District Magistrate, Maharajganj alongwith a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided by the said respondent, in accordance with law, by a speaking order, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent no. 8 and other concerned parties, if there be any, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within  a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the same.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition is finally disposed of. 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.