Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. ANITA YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Anita Yadav v. State Of U.P. And Another - WRIT - A No. 16725 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 5744 (30 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

                                                                                                            Court No. 39

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16725 of 2007

Smt. Anita Yadav

Versus

State of U.P. and another.

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

     Heard Sri D.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner,  Sri G.C. Singh  Advocate,  Sri S.K. Anwar Advocate and Sri Anuj Kumar for the respondents.

Petitioner has approached this court questioning the validity of the order dated 19.3.2007 passed by the District Magistrate,  Chandauli wherein appointment of  Smt. Anita Yadav as Shisha Mitra has been cancelled and directives have been issued to Gram Shiksha Samiti to consider the matter  afresh   after  including the application form of Smt. Sunita Yadav also.

Brief background of the  case in brief is that   selection proceedings were undertaken for making selection and appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra. Petitioner was one of the candidate who applied for consideration of her claim for being appointed as Shiksha Mitra. Smt. Sunita Yadav claimed that she also was one of the applicant and on 25.9.2006 she went to Secretary, Gram Shiksha Samiti  to deposit her application form , but same was not accepted by him and  as such second copy of the same was got received with the In-charge  (Sankul Prabhari), Marufpur within the time prescribed. In the  resolution, which was passed   therein claim of Smt. Sunita Yadav was not considered by contending that her application form was received late. Being aggrieved of her non selection  Smt. Sunita Yadav preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7167 of 2007 and this court on 9.2.2007 asked the District Magistrate to hear and decide the matter. Thereafter, matter has been heard on 9.3.2007 and order impugned has been passed, which is subject matter of challenge.

Short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of  respondent No.8 to show  that after  summoning relevant record and after examining the same, valid action has been taken.

Sri D.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case , form of Smt. Sunita Yadav was received late at 7.30 in the evening and as such her candidature has rightly not been considered and the view which has been taken  by the District Magistrate, Chandauli is totally incorrect view and as such same is liable to be quashed.

Sri G .C. Singh, Advocate appearing for the contesting respondent  No. 8 as well as Sri Anuj Kumar Advocate and Sri S.K. Anwar Advocate  for other respondents have contended that valid decision has been taken and no interference is required.

After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position, which is emerging is that last date for filling up application form was 25.9.2006. On 25.9.2006, Smt. Sunita Yadav presented her application form before the Pradhan  and on the said date  Smt.  Chhabiraji   Pradhan appended her signature on the said form. Specific case of Smt. Sunita Yadav is that on 25.9.2006 Secretary of Gram Shiksha Samiti did not accept her application form and second copy of application form was accepted by the In charge  (Sankul Prabhari), Marufpur and receipt was given. Receipt which has been issued in favour of Smt.  Sunita Yadav does not mention that said application form has been submitted  by Smt. Sunita Yadav, after the period mentioned was  over. It has been sought to be contended that application form  was  submitted at  7.30 in the evening. The  receipt, which has been issued, same does not contain any such time mentioned in the said application form that said application was received late. Stand, which has been sought to be taken on subsequent occasion clearly appears to be on after thought. In case application form of Smt. Sunita Yadav was  not submitted  in time, then it was bounden  duty of the Incharge  (Sankul Prabhari), Marufpur to have made endorsement that application form has been submitted late, but there is no such endorsement  on the receipt, then necessary presumption is that application form has been submitted well within time. Any  statement made by  Incharge ( Sankul Prabhari), Marufpur or by Pradhan will in no way help the petitioner and documentary will have to believed and trusted. District Magistrate, Chandauli has proceeded to believe the version  set up by Smt. Sunita Yadav that on the same date, she  got consent from the Pradhan and she had submitted her application form and there  was no reason that she  would not get her form submitted. The opinion, which has been formed by the District Magistrate can neither be termed to be arbitrary, unreasonable or perverse, which would prompt this court to  reverse the said finding by acting as  an appellate forum.

Consequently, writ petition is dismissed.

Dt. 30.3.2007

T.S.


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.