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. Manju Devi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 17299 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 6039 (3 April 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 and perused the record.

In the selection for Aanganbari Karyakatri for the village in question, the petitioner as well as Respondent no.6 had both applied. The Selection Committee had proposed the name of the Respondent no.6 for appointment on such post of Aanganbari Karyakatri. Challenging the said order, the petitioner had earlier filed writ petition no. 71116 of 2006 on the ground that the income certificate of the Respondent no.6 to the effect that she was living below poverty line, was wrong. By Judgment and Order dated 3.1.2007 this Court disposed of the said writ petition with the direction to the District Programme Officer, Ghazipur to look into the grievances of the petitioner and pass reasoned order. In pursuance thereof the impugned order dated 24.2.2007 has been passed by the  District Programme Officer, Ghazipur.

It is clear that the said order has been passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as Respondent no.6. It has been categorically stated in the said order that the income certificate of the respondent no.6 was got re-verified by the Tansildar concerned who, vide his fresh report dated 14.2.2007, has stated that the husband of the Respondent no.6 is an educated unemployed and that the income certificate issued earlier to the effect that the Respondent no.6 is a person living below poverty line has been found to be correct. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the father-in-law of the Respondent no.6  is in government service and owns agricultural land. In my view  it is not the income of the father-in-law of the Respondent no.6 which is to be considered but is is the income of the respondent no.6 or her husband which is to be taken into consideration. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.6 or her husband own any land or that the husband of Respondent no.6 is in government service and is earning any salary.

In such view of the matter, since there is a categorical finding of fact that the respondent no.6 or her husband are both unemployed and living below poverty line, I do not find any reason to interfere with such findings given in the impugned order. Further, since the petitioner as well as Respondent no.6 were both found to be living below poverty line and they had both secured the same quality point marks, hence as per the Government Order dated 16.12.2003 the Respondent no.6, who is senior in age, has been declared selected. As such, in my view, no interference is called for with the impugned order.

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost.

dt. 3.4.2007


w.p. 17299.07


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.