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


Sumendra Pal Maurya v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 23879 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 9709 (21 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. 23879 of 2007

Sumendra Pal Maurya


State of U.P and others

Hon'ble V.K.Shukla,J.

Petitioner applied for consideration of his claim for Special B.T.C. Course 2004. Petitioner submits that his name was finalized for being selected and appointed on the post of Shiksha Mitra in the list which had been prepared on 04.01.2006 and thereafter petitioner was asked to appear for verification of the record on 09.01.2006. Petitioner submits that in between he was arrayed as an accused in Case Crime No. 108 of 2005 under Sections 147,148,149,302, 201 IPC and Section 3(2) (V) of S.C & ST (PA) Act P.S. Sultanpur Ghosh, district Fatehpur and was sent to Jail on 17.12.2005. Petitioner submits that he has been released on bail on 24.06.2006, as such directives be issued to respondents to take fresh verification and he be permitted to complete his training.

Once the list has been finalized on 04.01.2006 and as per said list petitioner had to present himself alongwith all testimonials for counselling and it was categorically mentioned therein that in the event of otherwise petitioner himself would be responsible, then in the said contingency if petitioner has undisputedly not appeared in the counselling on 09.01.2006, and reason for non-appearance is apparent of being in Fetehpur Jail in Case Crime No. 108 of 2005 under Sections 147,148,149,302, 201 IPC and Section 3(2) (V) of S.C & ST (PA) Act P.S. Sultanpur Ghosh, district Fatehpur then the authorities can not be said to be at fault. Once precise date was fixed and on the said date petitioner was in Jail, then , as far as this Court is concerned, this Court does will come to the rescue of the petitioner by giving directives to the respondents to entertain the petitioner for counselling and sent him for training.

In the fact and circumstances of the present case no relief can be accorded to the petitioner specially when counselling has already taken place and therein petitioner was not present on account of being lodged in jail.

Consequently, writ petition 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.