Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURENDRA YADAV versus THE STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Surendra Yadav v. The State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 261 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 4002 (8 March 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 OF ALLAHABAD

Chief Jusitce's Court

Special Appeal No. 261 of 2007

Surendra Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others

*****

Counsel for the appellant :Mr. Radha Kant Ojha &

Mr. Gopal Ji Rai

Counsel for the respondents :Mr. Mahendra Singh,

Mr. R.K. Srivastava,

Mr. V.K. Singh & Standing Counsel

*****

Hon'ble H.L. Gokhale,CJ

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5.

2. The appeal seeks to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby he has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant.

3. The controversy was with respect to the post of Shiksha Mitra in district Kushinagar. There is no dispute that respondent no. 5 has received the highest marks. The only contention of the petitioner was that she had given up in writing that she did not want this particular post, and inasmuch as he was the next person, he ought to have been given the job.

4. The District Magistrate has noted that the disputed writing of the respondent no. 5 was not produced before him in original. In any case, the respondent no. 5 was keen on the job. The District Magistrate, therefore, held that the respondent no. 5 was entitled to the job concerned. This decision was challenged in a writ petition to the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition noting that the District Magistrate has held appropriate inquiry.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant who contends emphasizing that the Advocate before whom the respondent no. 5 had notorised her statements, supported the appellant by saying that she had made such statements. Even so, in our view, so long as the original was not produced before the District Magistrate, the District Magistrate should not be faulted in  not relying on a photocopy.     That apart, respondent no. 5 received the highest marks, she was keen on the job and though she had given disputed writing earlier,  since she was keen on the job and had insisted that the allegedly writing given by her should not be used against her, in our view, the appellant could not claim any equity or any better right or any estoppel. No reason to interfere into the order under appeal.

6. The appeal is dismissed.

       

Date:8.3.2007         (Chief Justice)

RK/

    (Ashok Bhushan,J)


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.