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


Kusuma Devi v. State Of U.P. Thru Secretary & Others - WRIT - A No. 10367 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 3284 (27 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 Standign counsel for the State-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 view of the nature of the order which is being passed, notice to Respondent no.6 is not being issued. In case, if the said respondent is so aggrieved, he may file an application for recall/modification/variation of this order.

In response to an advertisement for appointment of Aanganbari Karyakatri for the village in question, the petitioner as well as Respondent no.6 and other candidates had applied. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner as well as Respondent no.6 both fall in the category of person living below poverty line. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was best suited for such appointment as she had passed High school with first division marks and Intermediate with second division marks whereas the Respondent no.6 had passed High school with grace marks and Intermediate with second division marks. It has been submitted that in order to favour the Respondent no.6, certain papers whichw ere annexed along with the application of the petitioner had been taken out by the respondent-authorities. With regard to such grievances the petitioner has already filed several representations before the resondent-authorities which have yet not been decided.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that in case if, with regard to the grievances made in this writ petition, the petitioner files a fresh comprehensive representation before the District Magistrate, Kannauj, Respondent no.2, along with a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided by the said Respondent no.2, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petiitoner, Respondent no.6 and other concerned persons, if there be any, within a period of two months from the date of filing of the same.

With the aforesaid observation/direction this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to cost.

dt. 27.2.2007


w.p. 10367.07


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.