High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Lata Niranjan Alias Smt. Lata Patel v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 36941 of 2006  RD-AH 5159 (22 March 2007)
Court No. 39
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36941 of 2007
Smt. Lata Niranjan
alias Smt. Lata Patel
State of U.P. and others.
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
At Prathamik Vidyalaya Marwah for Academic Session 2005-2006, second post of Shiksha Mitra was created, which was reserved for female category candidate. The concerned Gram Shiksha Samiti invited applications, pursuant to which applications were submitted. On 12.12.2005 Gram Shiksha Samiti passed Resolution in favour of Smt. Vinita Niranjan and thereafter, date for moving application for consideration was extended as 13.12.2005. Smt. Lata Niranjan thereafter applied. Thereafter, as there was doubt and dispute in respect of resident of Smt. Lata Niranjan, Gram Shiksha Samiti resolved not to select Smt. Lata Niranjan and thereafter on 25.12.2005 Resolution was passed in favour of Smt. Vinita Niranjan. Said resolution was approved by the District Selection Committee. Thereafter, Smt. Lata Niranjan got her marriage registered on 26.12.2005 mentioning therein that her marriage has taken place on 5.6.2005 and as such her place should be treated as place of her husband, as such she should be offered appointment as Shiksh Mitra. Petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9804 of 2006 wherein order dated 22.3.2006 was passed. Not only this Smt. Vinita Niranjan also preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5969 of 2006 wherein on 10.2.2006 this court gave direction to District Magistrate to consider the matter. District Magistrate, thereafter pursuant to order dated 22.3.2006 has proceeded to pass order, which is subject matter of challenge.
Sri S.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case solemnization of marriage was undisputed fact and once marriage in question has been registered under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Rules, 1973, then there was no occasion to ignore certificate of registration as same is valid evidence of proof of factum of marriage and as such impugned order is liable to be quashed.
Sri Mahendra Babadur Singh, learned counsel for the respondents contended that entire claim of Smt. Lata Niranjan is nothing but an out come of the fraud and manipulation and rightful decision has been taken by the District Magistrate, Jhansi.
After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed factual position, which is emerging is that applications were invited for making selection and appointment of Shiksha Mitra. In the meeting of the Gram Shiksha Samiti dated 12.12.2005, name of Smt. Vinita Niranjan was finalized. Thereafter, said date was extended and petitioner too applied for consideration of her claim as Shiksha Mitra. Dispute had been raised qua resident of petitioner on the ground that marriage has not at all been solemnized and fictitious residential certificate has been obtained. On 26.12.2005 claim of petitioner was not accepted by not accepting her, as resident of aforementioned village, as such she was not selected and net effect of the same was that Smt. Vinita Niranjan has been selected and her name was duly approved by the District Selection Committee. After said resolution has been passed on 26.12.2005, then thereafter marriage in question has been sought to be registered and it has been sought to be claimed that marriage has taken place on 5.6.2005. On the date when the resolution has been passed on 26.12.2005, there was no proof of marriage having been solemnized to the contrary on 23.12.2005, concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate has cancelled the resident certificate of petitioner. Thereafter, even if, marriage has been got registered on 28.12.2005, as far as passing of Resolution dated 220.127.116.115 is concerned, same cannot be faulted and same cannot be termed to be arbitrary decision on the part of the respondents. Petitioner has tried to fill up lacuna by getting Registration Certificate, as serious dispute has been raised qua factum of the marriage. It is true that said marriage certificate can be read in evidence, but it is equally true that on the date when resolution has been passed, there was no such document before the respondents authority and as such, view which have been taken, cannot be faulted.
Much reliance has been placed on the report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 19.1.2006 for the fact that order dated 23.12.2005 had been recalled as such the ground for passing order became non-existent. The said order dated 19.1.2006 also mentions clearly that earlier marriage has not at all taken place, legally in spite of the same, residential certificate has been got prepared and as such when correct facts were brought to notice same was cancelled. It has also been mentioned therein that subsequent to the same, marriage has been got registered, as such petitioner now can be treated as resident. Order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate clearly takes note to the fact that marriage in question was not at all legal marriage and in spite of the same, by misleading, certificate in question of resident has been obtained. Order dated 23.12.2005 , has not been cancelled rather it has been made clear that after marriage has been registered, now petitioner can be accepted as resident. Thus as far as resident certificate is concerned, there was serious factual dispute and merely because on the subsequent occasion certificate has been obtained, same will not at all change the status of petitioner.
Consequently, writ petition lacks substance and same is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.