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. Sudha v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary, Secondary Education & Others - WRIT - A No. 36254 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 6903 (16 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).


Court No. 39

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36254 of 2006

Smt. Sudha


State of U.P. and another

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of order dated 04.05.2006 (Annexure-5 to writ petition) passed by District Inspector of Schools, refusing to accord payment of salary to her.

Brief background of the case is that earlier petitioner had approached this Court by filing writ petition No.39757 of 1993, wherein this Court  while disposing of writ petition had categorically observed therein that payment of arrears could be made only if it is found that petitioner had actually worked for the period in question. Pursuant to directives issued by this Court, District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffar Nagar, has proceeded to examine the matter and has found that entire claim of petitioner was nothing but an outcome of fraud and manipulation.  District Inspector of Schools has perused the Attendance Registers from 1993 to October, 2005 and therein in none of the registers, name petitioner is mentioned nor her signatures are there. Apart from this, it has also been found that petitioner being selected at Gomti Kannya Inter College, Jansath reported for duties  and at the said point of time she produced her experience certificate dated 10.05.2005 since July, 2000, showing therein that petitioner had been working at Santosh Kannya Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Krishnapuri, Muzaffarngar as Assistant Teacher of Science and Maths and her conduct was good. On the basis of all these documentary evidence, opinion has been formed that entire claim of petitioner is nothing but an outcome of fraud and manipulation and deliberate attempt has been made to mislead the authorities . With these findings of fact,  District Inspector of Schools has rejected the claim of petitioner.

Once this is the factual position, then it is not expected of a teacher to raise such farce and fictitious claim on the basis of farce and fictitious documents. Claim of petitioner is far away from truth, and  no credibility could be attached to the same. Petitioner has tried to show that separate attendance register was being maintained. There is no  provision to maintain separate attendance register, and circumstances are  speaking for itself, that the same has been mentioned only for the purposes of case. This Court has decided  writ petition filed by petitioner on 27.10.2005. Petitioner at no point of time disclosed before this Court  that she has already  been appointed at Gomti Kanya Intrer College. The tenor of the order dated 27.10.2005, clearly reflects that impression had been given that she was continuing in the institution, and salary has not been ensured to her. The genuinety of claim of petitioner is fully exposed from Annexure C.A.-1. Petitioner claims that she was never appointed at Santosh Kanya Inter College, she never worked and she was never paid any salary. In paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit, details of letter dated 10.03.2005, has been given, and copy of said letter has been appended. Petitioner, in paragraph 14 of Rejoinder Affidavit, has stated that she has not filed any such letter, and it is not necessary for L.T. Grade teacher to file any certificate. Nowhere petitioner has dared to say that self attestation made on said certificate, is not in her own handwriting. Signature on Annexure C.A.1 of Smt. Sudha tallies with the admitted signature of Smt. Sudha made on the purported separate attendance register.  District Inspector of Schools, in the present case has taken conscious decision, on the basis of material available, and said conclusions, are neither perverse nor unreasonable, as such no interference is warranted.

Consequently, there is no merit in the writ petition, it lacks substance and is dismissed.




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.