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. Usha Devi v. The District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar And Others - WRIT - A No. 21877 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 8589 (7 May 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. 21877 of 2007

Smt. Usha Devi


The District Magistrate, Sidharthnagar and others.

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner has approached this court questioning the validity of the decision dated 30.3.2007 passed by the District Basic education Officer, Sidharthnagar.

Record in question reveals that petitioner had applied for selection and appointment as Shiksha Mitra. Her claim has been accepted.  Against which, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.66124 of 2006 Km. Mansha Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others had been filed and this court on 5.12.2006 asked the District Magistrate to decide the natter. District Magistrate rejected the claim of Mansha Devi. Mansha Devi preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6119 of 2007.

On the presentation of the writ petition, this court on 13.2.2007 passed following, which is extracted below:-

   "Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2. Respondent nos. 3 and 6 are represented by Sri S.D. Sahai Advocate. Respondent no. 4 is represented by Sri Anuj Kumar Advocate.

Issue notice to respondent no.5 fixing a date in the third weeks of March, 2007. Petitioner to take steps within one week from today. All the respondents may file counter affidavit by the next date fixed.

List on the date fixed.

It is contended that the District Magistrate, Sidharthnagar has upheld the appointment of Smt. Usha Devi on the ground that she belongs to handicapped category without examining the contention  raised on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that disability certificate filed by the said candidate  records that she  was  handicapped to the category of 20% only such candidates are not entitled to be treat within the handicapped category.

Petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim order.

Till the next date of listing no further action shall be taken in pursuance to the order dated 16.1.2007 passed by the District Magistrate,  Sidharnagar."

After said interim order had been passed, it appears that District Magistrate passed order on 2.3.2007 and thereafter District Basic Education Officer, Sidharthnagar  on 30.3.2007 passed order restraining the petitioner from functioning as Shiksha Mitra. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

Sri Ajai Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that  order has passed  in misreading of the interim order, as such writ petition be entertained and allowed.

In the present case petitioner has already filed stay vacation application in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6119 of 2007. Once this is writ apparent that the order dated 30.3.2007  has been passed pursuant to the order dated 2.3.2007 passed by the District Magistrate and the order passed by this court and petitioner has already applied for vacation of the stay order, then remedy of petitioner lies in perusing the aforementioned writ petition and getting stay order vacated instead of filing present writ petition. Petitioner has not at all  appended copy of the order dated 2.3.2007 in order to enable the court to known the reason, for passing of the order.

In these circumstances aforementioned writ petition, as has been framed and drawn is dismissed. However, dismissal of this writ petition will not prevent the petitioner from perusing his stay vacation application and order dated 2.3.2007 passed by the District  Magistrate shall abide by fresh order that shall be passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6119 of 2007.

Subject of observations made above, writ petition is dismissed.

Dt. 7.5.2007



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.