Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. SHASHI BALA RAJPUT versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Shashi Bala Rajput v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 20832 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 8093 (30 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.20832 of 2007

Smt. Shashi Bala Rajput

Versus

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla.J.

Petitioner has approached this Court questioning the validity of the decision dated 11.07.2005 passed by Secretary Secondary Education Government of U.P. at Lucknow.

Earlier petitioner had approached this Court by preferring Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23206 of 2000 (Smt. Shashi Bala Rajput Vs. State of U.P. and others). This Court on 18.05.2000 asked the authority concerned to look into the grievance of the petitioner and take appropriate decision on the same. Thereafter Secretary Secondary Education Government of U.P. at Lucknow on the basis of record so produced has rejected the claim of the petitioner.

Impugned order in question reflects that petitioner claims that she was appointed on ad-hoc vacancy which had occurred on account of according promotion to one Smt. Vijay Saxena. Categorical finding of fact has been returned that Smt. Vijay Saxena had been performing and discharging duties as Music teacher and by virtue of being Music teacher she was accorded lecturer's pay scale with effect from 01.01.1986. Categorical finding of fact has been returned that at the point of time when she has been accorded lecturer's pay scale at no point of time any vacancy has occurred, in this background Secretary Secondary Education Government of U.P. at Lucknow has rejected the claim of the petitioner. Once this is the situation and based on the said factual position which has emerged opinion has been formed. Thus, there is hardly any scope of interference.

Consequently, present writ petition lacks substance and is dismissed.

Dated: 30th April, 2007

Dhruv


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.