Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. SUNEETA PANDEY versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Suneeta Pandey v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 19938 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 7247 (19 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 V.K. Shukla, J.

Learned counsel petitioner is permitted to implead Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna through its Secretary as respondent no. 8 in the array of respondents forthwith.

Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2. Sri R.K. Srivastava, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 9. Sri V.K. Singh, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of respondent no. 4.

Issue notice to respondents no. 5 to 8.

Each one of the respondents is granted six weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within next two weeks.

List 12.07.2007.

It has been contended by petitioner that Vijay Kumar Yadav has succeeded in procuring appointment as Shiksha Mitra on the basis of farce and fictitious mark-sheet of Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna. It has been contended that at the point of time when he moved application different mark- sheet of aforesaid Council has been appended. On verification of registration of PU No. 0063/1994 it was found that it was in the name of Subrat Pal S/o Sabal Pal from Purnia Inter College Purnia, Bihar. Record in question also reveals that on 10.01.2007 Vijay Kumar Yadav made an application before Secretary,  Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna mentioning therein that mark sheet of Intermediate of year 1997 from R.K.K. College Purnia, Bihar has been lost as such he needs fresh mark sheet. It appears that said mark-sheet has been given on the incorrect statement of fact. In the said application which has been filed as Annexure No. 7 therein registration number PU-63-94 has been mentioned in place of PU 00063/1994. District Magistrate who was entrusted to inquire into the matter, in stead of verifying the records from newly impleaded respondent, has proceeded to accept the version set up by Vijay Kumar Yadav as truthful without undertaking any exercise. In these circumstances the District Magistrate ought to have carried out some exercise by making verification from the newly impleaded respondent no. 8.

As no exercise whatsoever has been done and the matter primafacie appears to be case of manipulation and maneuvering, consequently till the position is not clear interim order is liable to be passed.

In these circumstance and in this background operation of the order dated 14.03.2007 passed District Magistrate, Deoria shall be kept in abeyance.

On the next date newly impleaded respondent no. 8 shall make due inquiry in the matter and file its counter affidavit and relevant record qua Vijay Kumar Yadav be also produced before this Court.    

Copy of this order be supplied to Sri R.K. Srivastava, Advocate for follow up action  

19th  April 2007

Dhruv(19938)


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.