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. Usha Devi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 12779 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 4093 (9 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).


Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 to 4. 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 the private respondent no. 5 is not being issued. However, in case if the said respondent is so aggrieved, she shall be at liberty to file an application for modification, variation and/or recall of this order.

It is the case of the petitioner that in response to an advertisement for appointment of Aganwari Karyakatri the petitioner as well as other persons had applied. In response thereto, the respondent no. 5 Smt. Kamlesh Kumari has been selected for such appointment. The submission is that the petitioner is below the poverty line and is to be given preference in appointment in terms of the Government Order dated 16.12.2003. It has further been submitted that the respondent no. 5 has an annual income of Rs. 30,000/- which has been duly certified by the Tahsildar vide his report dated 30.10.2006 issued to the petitioner in response to a query made under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner thus submits that the respondent no. 5 is above the poverty line and the petitioner ought to have been given preference for appointment as Aganwari Karyakatri. With regard to such grievances, the petitioner has already filed several representations before the respondent 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 finally disposed of with the direction that in case if, with regard to his grievances made in this writ petition, the petitioner  files a fresh comprehensive representation before the respondent no. 2, the District Magistrate, Kanput Dehat 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. 5, Smt. Kamlesh Kumari and other concerned parties, if there be any, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 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.