Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT.AARTEE YADAV versus STATE OF U.P.AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt.Aartee Yadav v. State Of U.P.And Others - WRIT - A No. 42521 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 7963 (27 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

                                                                                                    Court No. 39

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42521 of 2006

Smt. Aartee Yadav

Versus

State of U.P. and others.

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Smt. Aartee Yadav has approached this court questioning the validity of the order dated 3.7.2006 passed by the District Magistrate, Deoria holding therein that petitioner is not resident of village Belthara, Gram Panchayat   Dhawarkan, Nyay Panchayat Korara, P.O. Majhauli Raj, Tehsil Bhatpar Rani, District Deoria as such appointment of petitioner as Shiksha Mitra is unsustainable and objection preferred by Vishwanath Pandey are sustainable.  Thereafter, pursuant to the said order, notification has been issued by the Head Master/Secretary of Primary School, Bilthara Dhawarkan for selection and appointment of Shiksha Mitra At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

Brief background of the case  as per petitioner is that she got married with Suresh Yadav son of Ram Ji Yadav, Resident of Belthara Gram Panchayat Dhawarkan, Nyay Panchayat  Korara, P.O. Majhauli Raj, Tehsil Bhattpar Rani, District Deoria. Petitioner has contended that she obtained domicile certificate from her in-laws place and said domicile certificate was issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhatpar Rani, District Deoria. Selection proceedings were undertaken for making selection and appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra. Petitioner submitted application-form on 15.11.2005, name of petitioner was recommended for  being offered appointment as Shiksha Mitra. After name of petitioner  was recommended, complaint was made in respect of place of residence of petitioner by Vishwanath Pandey, respondent no.6. On the said complaint being made, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhatpar Rani, District Deoria on 8.2.2006 forwarded letter specifying therein that petitioner is permanent residence of village Belthara, District Deoria. Respondent no.6 questioned the recommendation made in favour of petitioner by preferring Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13708 of 1986 and this court asked the District Magistrate, Deoria to examine the claim of petitioner of aforementioned writ petition.  Petitioner has contended that she had been performing and discharging her duty, and  thereafter, matter has  been examined by the District Magistrate, Deoria and District Magistrate, Deoria has proceeded to pass order dated 3.7.2006, which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.  

On the presentation of the writ petition, this court on 8.8.2006 passed order, which is being extracted below:-

" Standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3. Shri R.K. Srivastava has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.4. Shri V.K. Singh has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.5. Shri Anil Kumar, Tiwari has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.6.

All the respondents pray for and are granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any,  may be filed within one week.

List on 7.9.2006.

Till the next date of listing , operation of the order dated 3.7.2006 and 15.7.2006 passed by the District Magistrate, Deoria, shall remain stayed".

In-spite of the time being accorded and matter  being listed on different dates i.e. 7.9.2006, 26.9.2006, 15.2.2007 and 14.3.2007, no steps whatsoever has been undertaken for filing counter affidavit.

On the matter being taken up today, parties to the dispute have agreed that matter be finally heard and decided on the basis of pleadings, as available in the writ petition.

Sri Viveka Nand Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case, District Magistrate, Deoria has clearly erred in law  in the fact  of the  present case, inasmuch as, without making any inquiry whatsoever in the matter, unnecessarily opinion has been formed that petitioner is not at all  residence of village  Belthara Gram Panchayat Dhawarkan, Nyaya Panchayat Korara, P.O. Majhauli Raj, Tehsil Bhatpar Rani, District Deoria and as such impugned order is liable to be quashed.

Learned Standing Counsel,  Sri V.K. Singh, R.K. Srivastava as well as Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari appearing for contesting respondents on the other hand contended that rightful opinion has been formed and thereafter, decisions which have been taken is strictly in accordance with law, and as such no interference is warranted.

After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which is emerging is that petitioner has applied for consideration of her claim as Shiksha Mitra, claiming herself to be resident of village Belthara Gram Panchayat Dhawarkan, Nyaya Panchayat Korara, P.O. Majhauli Raj, Tehsil Bhatpar Rani, District Deoria. Domicile certificate has also been issued in favour of petitioner on 11.11.2005. On the basis of merit having 63.52% average marks petitioner was selected. Complaint has been made in respect of domicile  certificate of petitioner, Surenedra Pandey even filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13708 of 2006 objecting to the domicile certificate  requesting therein that candidature of petitioner be cancelled and he be selected. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhatpar Rani, District Deoria examined the matter on 2.5.2006 and mentioned therein that petitioner is married with one Suresh  Yadav, Resident of village Belthara Gram Panchayat Duawarkan, Nyaya Panchayat Korara, P.O. Majhauli Raj, Tehsil Bhatpar Rani, District Deoria, but she has not come to village Dhawarkan and as such she is not staying in the territory of aforesaid village since last three years. Record in question reveals that after report dated 2.5.2005 had been submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhatpar Rani, District Deoria, petitioner moved an application dated 12.5.2006 giving therein details fact in respect of her domicile certificate.  Record in question  reveals that after said report has been submitted on 2.5.2006, petitioner had  moved representation dated 12.5.2006, said representation has been referred to in the order dated 3.7.2006, but thereafter no reasons whatsoever has been given as to why averments mentioned in the representation dated 12.5.2006 has not been accepted . Operative portion of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Deoria mentions that matter has been examined and it is found that objection filed by Vishwanath Pandey are sustainable but the impugned order, no where indicates as to was the foundation and basis for non suiting the claim of petitioner. Fact of the matter is that material, produced by the petitioner,  along with representation dated 12.5.2006  has merely  been referred to but it contents have not  at all been averted to in its correct prospective.

In these circumstances and in this background order dated 3.7.2006 passed by the District Magistrate, Deoria and consequential order dated 15.7.2006 by means of which application  has been  invited for making selection and appointment on the post on the post of Shiksha Mitra by the Head Master/|Secretary of Primary School Belthra Road, District deoria is quashed. Mater is remitted back to District Magistrate, Deoria for being decided afresh by means of reasoned speaking order, preferably within period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order after providing opportunity of hearing to Smt. Aartee yadav as well as Vishwanath Pandery. Whatever decision is taken, same be communicated to the petitioner.

With these observations, writ petition is allowed.

No orders as to cost.

Dt. 27.4.2007

T.S.

                                                                       


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.