Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

FATMA BEGUM versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Fatma Begum v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 18510 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 6690 (12 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

By this writ petition  the petitioner has prayed for quashing the advertisement dated  30.12.2006  issued by Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari, Phoolpur, District Allahabad inviting applications for he appointment of Anganbari Karyakatri of village Sarvadesh.  Petitioner's case in the writ petition  is that the petitioner was selected but on the basis of some complaint appointment letter was not issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made several representations to the authorities to give reasons for not appointing the petitioner  but no decision was communicated. He submits that fresh advertisement has wrongly been issued.

I have considered the submission of counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.  

Although in the writ petition  the petitioner has claimed that she was selected for Anganbari Karyakatri, the counsel for the petitioner himself stated that the appointment letter  was not issued on account of some complaint. He submits that  certain enquiries were conducted on the complaint.  The petitioner having not been appointed nor any appointment letter was issued, no grounds have been made to quash the advertisement. However, as contended by the petitioner that she has submitted various representations to the authorities, the said representations may be considered and the decision be communicated to the petitioner in accordance with law.  

With the above observations the writ petition  is dismissed.

D/-12.4.2007

SCS/18510


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.