NAZAMA PARVEEN versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Nazama Parveen v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 49789 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 15775 (11 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

Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49789 of 2006

Smt. Nazama Parveen

Versus

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner was appointed as Aanganbari Karyakatri while she was unmarried for center Jat Sanaya, Rampur. Thereafter compliant was made that petitioner is not at all resident of village wherein center in question is situated. On the said complaint being made inquiry was conducted and thereafter service of the petitioner has been sought to be disengaged.

Contention of the petitioner is that entire proceedings undertaken against the petitioner is ex parte as such impugned order dispensing with her service are liable to be quashed.

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that petitioner was offered appointment when she was unmarried and now she is married staying with her husband, as such once petitioner is not stying at the aforesaid village then the view which has been sought to be taken is correct view and no interference is warranted.

After respective arguments have been advanced. This fact is clearly reflected that petitioner has been offered appointment when she was unmarried. Description of the petitioner reflects that she is married and this position has not been disputed. as such opinion which has been formed cannot be said to be ingenuine or in correct opinion, and opportunity, in no view of the matter could have improved the case of the petitioner that after marriage she has been obliged to her husband place.

Consequently no interference is warranted and writ petition is dismissed.

11.09.2006

Dhruv  

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 |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.