Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. SANGEETA TYAGI versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Sangeeta Tyagi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 48116 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 15510 (6 September 2006)

 

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. ARUN TANDON, J.

It is contended that the order dated 29.7.2006 has been passed by the District Magistrate, Bijnor without notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Under the  impugned order the selection of the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra has been jeopardized and one Anjana Kumari has been directed to be appointed in place of petitioner. In the  impugned order it has been recorded that Anjana Kumari has submitted an application for the post of Shiksha Mitra, which was deliberately not considered by the Gram Shiksha Samiti. The quality point marks, which could be awarded to Anjana Kumari, are 63.9% and therefore she is entitled to appointment in preference to any other candidate.

Petitioner disputes the correctness of the finding recorded by the District Magistrate in the order impugned on the ground that Anjana Kumari had not applied for the post in question.

In the opinion of the Court, since the finding of facts recorded by the District Magistrate qua the application submitted by Anjana Kumari are disputed and further since the order is alleged to have been passed without notice and opportunity of hearing to petitioner, it is desirable that the petitioner may make an application pointing out the fact stated in the present writ petition. If such a representation is made within two weeks from today before the District Magistrate, Bijnor along with certified copy of this order, he shall call for the records and shall examine the merit of the representation, after affording opportunity to Anjana Kumari, he shall pass a reasoned speaking order, preferably within four weeks thereafter. The order passed by the District Magistrate dated 29.7.2006 shall abide the orders, which may be passed on the representation of the petitioner as directed above.

With the aforesaid directions/observations, the present writ petition is disposed of finally.      

06.09.2006

Pkb/48116-06


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.