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


Rani Bharadwaj v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1583 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 15493 (13 September 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).


"CJ's Court"



Special Appeal No. 1583 of 2006.

1. Rani Bhardwaj, Wife of Satish Kumar,

Resident of Village Kakrapar, Post Office

Beeri Bari, District Jaunpur.


1. State of U.P., through its Principal Secretary,

Ministry of Basic Education, Civil Secretariate,


2. District Magistrate, Jaunpur,

3. Specialist District Basic Education Officer,


4. Gram Shiksha Samiti Kakrapar, through its

Secretary, Head Master Primary Vidyalaya,

Kakrapar, Jaunpur.

5. Ram Lal, Head Master, Primary Vidyalaya,

Kakrapar, Jaunpur.

6. Smt. Kanchan Singh, Wife of Anil Kumar Yadav,

R/o Village Kakrapar, Post Office Heeri Bari,

Block Dhobi, District Jaunpur.


Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. N.L. Pandeu

Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. Anuj Kumar

Mr. V. Singh

Mr. G.C. Upadhyaya

(Standing Counsel)

Hon'ble H.L. Gokhale, CJ.

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Date : September 13, 2007

Oral Judgement (Per : H.L. Gokhale, CJ)

1. Heard Mr. N.L. Pandey in support of this appeal, Sri G.C. Upadhyaya, learned Standing Counsel as well as Mr. V. Singh appears for the respondents.

2. The appellant had applied for the appointment to the post of 'Shiksha Mitra' of the village concerned in the district Jaunpur against reserved O.B.C. female category. The applications were invited for appointment for two posts in which one was reserved for O.B.C. female category and other post was unreserved. There was another candidate i.e. respondent no.6 herein, who had also applied for the same post. The respondent no. 6 failed to mention in her application that she belongs to O.B.C. female category. However, before the decision was arrived at by the Collector, Jaunpur, the respondent no. 6 produced all the necessary documents relating to O.B.C. category. As far as the marks obtained by both the appellant as well as respondent nos. 6 is concerned, there is no dispute that the respondent no. 6 has better qualitative marks showing 61.0 as against 60.35 of the appellant herein. The collector therefore passed an order that the respondent no. 6 is entitled to be appointed on the post of 'Shiksha Mitra' against the vacancy reserved for O.B.C. category.

3. This order was challenged by the appellant by filing writ petition. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition and upheld the decision of the Collector. The appellant aggrieved by the order passed by learned single Judge dated 6th November, 2006 filed the present appeal and that appeal came up for consideration before this Court. The earlier Division Bench of this Court has stayed the order passed by learned single Judge vide order dated 14th December, 2006 principally on the footing that the respondent no. 6 had not mention particularly in the form that she belongs to O.B.C. category candidate.

4. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Mr. Pandey submitted that it was necessary for respondent no.6 to produce all the relevant documents with regard to O.B.C. category candidate at the time of filling up the application form for the post of 'Shiksha Mitra' and such documents could not be given later on. In this connection, we have to note it that if a candidate has the necessary qualification, she should not be deprived only on technical ground. There is no dispute that the respondent no. 6 has better marks than that of the appellant herein. She also belongs to O.B.C. category candidate, but unfortunately she did not state it in the application form, but she produced the documents well within time before the Collector, who has rightly passed the order in favour of respondent no.6.

5. In our view, the learned single Judge was right in passing the order of dismissal of the writ petition. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 18th December, 2006 passed by earlier Division Bench of this Court stands vacated.

Date : 13.09.2007.


(Chief Justice)

(Anjani Kumar)


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.