High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Maya Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 19440 of 2007  RD-AH 6651 (11 April 2007)
Court No. 39
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19440 of 2007
Smt. Maya Singh
State of U.P. and another
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court questioning the validity of decision dated 07.03.2007 taken by District Magistrate, Basti, allowing representation preferred by Smt. Rinku Chaudhary and directing cancellation of selection and appointment of Smt. Maya Singh, the petitioner.
Brief background of the case is that applications were invited for selection and appointment on the post of Shikshamitra. In the said selection proceedings, petitioner as well as Smt. Rinku Chaudhary, both, had applied for consideration of their candidature. Claim of Smt. Rinku Chaudhary was not considered on the pretext that she was married and living with her husband at her in-laws place. After cancellation of claim of Smt. Rinku Chaudhary, name of petitioner was considered on merit and her appointment was duly approved; she was sent for training, and thereafter she joined at primary school Narkhoria, District Basti. Petitioner has contended that after passage of one year of her joining, Smt. Rinku Chaudhary filed writ petition No.26401 of 2006, before this Court, and this Court asked the authority concerned to decide the matter. Petitioner has contended that she again completed training from 26.12.2006 to 10.01.2007. Petitioner has contended that thereafter, without providing any opportunity of hearing illegally impugned order has been passed canceling her candidature and accepting the candidature of Smt. Rinku Chaudhary. Supplementary affidavit has also been filed, mentioning therein that petitioner is not at all daughter-in-law of the Pradhan of village Narkhoria, District Basti.
Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Smt. Rinku Chaudhary, and therein it has been sought to be contended that merit status of Smt. Rinku Chaudhary is much higher. It has also been contended that at the point of time, when applications had been invited, Smt. Rinku Chaudhary was unmarried, and thereafter she got married in November, 2005 and Vidai Ceremony had not taken place. It has also been sought to be contended that she has no brother, as such she is staying with her parents. In this background, it has been contended that valid decision has been taken and merit has been favoured.
After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.
Sri Gopal Srivastava, learned Counsel or petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the present case, at no point of time when District Magistrate has ever tried to verify the fact as to whether Smt. Rinku Chaudhary was staying at her in-laws place or at the place of her parents, entire impugned order has not at all considered this aspect of the matter, and to the contrary order shows that at each and every place, District Magistrate has described Smt. Rinku Chaudhary as "Sushri", meaning thereby, District Magistrate was under the impression that Rinku Chaudhary was unmarried, then in this background, there was much more burden cast upon the District Magistrate to have got the enquiry conducted in regard to place of her residence,, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Sri Shiv Dayal Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, contended that rightful decision has been taken and no interference is required. Similar submission has been made by Sri Anuj Kumar and Sri B.P. Singh, Advocates, also.
After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position, which emerges, is to the effect that there has been serious dispute in respect of place of residence of Smt. Rinku Chaudhary. Smt. Rinku Chaudhary claims that she has been staying at her parents' place, whereas it is precise case of petitioner that she is staying at her in-laws' place, and only for procuring appointment as Shikshamitra, large scale manipulations have been done by her. In the present case, as for as District Magistrate is concerned, he has not at all considered this aspect of the matter. District Magistrate at each and every place has described Smt. Rinku Chaudhary as "Sushri", meaning thereby, District Magistrate was under the impression that Rinku Chaudhary was unmarried. The District Magistrate has proceeded on the presumption that the report, which was submitted on 21.12.2006, same contained correct statements of facts. Copy of report had never been supplied to petitioner in order to enable her to file objection, and the matter has not at all been considered in its correct perspective, as such order impugned deserves to be quashed.
Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated 07.03.2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the District Magistrate, Basti, for being decided afresh. District Magistrate is directed to supply copy of enquiry report dated 21.12.2006 to the petitioner and provide her opportunity to file objection to the same, and thereafter on receipt of reply, pass fresh order, after providing opportunity of hearing to petitioner as well as Smt. Rinku Chaudhary, and the decision so taken be communicate to both of them.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.