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


Meenu Singh v. Union Of India Thru' Min. Of Rly. & Another - WRIT - A No. 47317 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 1574 (6 July 2005)


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.6

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.     47317     Of 2005

Meenu Singh .......................................................Petitioner


Union of India and another.................................. Respondents.


Hon. Tarun Agarwala,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Govind Saran, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

In view of the urgency of the matter this petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

The petitioner applied as a candidate for the post of Stenographer (Hindi) on the basis of an advertisement published in the employment news dated 24.12.2004. The application of the petitioner has been rejected by an order dated 9.5.2005 issued by the Railway Recruitment Board, Allahabad, on the ground, that her application form was incomplete as it did not indicate two identification marks. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition alleging that she did not indicate the identification marks in the application, on the ground, that she has no identification mark on her body and therefore, was unable to give any kind of identification in the application.

Sri Govind Saran, the learned counsel for the respondents has produced the photostat copy of the application form and the advertisement which shows that the petitioner did not indicate the identification mark as required in the application and contended that in view of Clause 10(xii) of the advertisement, her application being incomplete was rejected. The photostat copy of the application and the advertisement has been taken on record. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner has a remedy of filing an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is misconceived. The advertisement clearly indicates that the jurisdiction for the redressal of the grievance of a candidate is either before the Central Administrative Tribunal or before any other Court within the territory of Allahabad. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner has a  remedy to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In view of the fact that the petitioner does not possess any identification mark on her body, the rejection of her application by the respondent is hyper technical. In view of the aforesaid peculiar circumstances relating to the case of the petitioner, I direct the Railway Recruitment Board, Allahabad to issue the admission card to the petitioner within 24 hours from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, to enable the petitioner, to appear for the written examination for the post of Stenographer (Hindi) which is going to be conducted on 10.7.2005.

The writ petition stands allowed.

A certified copy of this order shall be made available to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within 24 hours.

Dt.: 6.7.2005



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.