Allahabad High Court
Sunita Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 24 July, 2012
Bench: Rajes Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 48002 of 2011
Petitioner :- Sunita Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Deepak K. Jaiswal,S.K.Singh Paliwal
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,J.P.Singh,M.D.Singh Sekher,R.D.Tiwari,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar,J.
Since on the issue, contradictory averments have been made in the affidavits filed by the different authorities, the Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar, U.P., Governemnt, Lucknow was directed to make an inquiry and submit the report. In pursuance thereof, the inquiry report of Sri Shambhu Nath, the Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar, U.P., Governemnt, Lucknow dated 18.5.2012 is being filed along with the compliance affidavit dated 21.5.2012 filed by Sri G.D. Yadav. In the inquiry report, he has referred various statements taken in the inquiry but he has shown is unableness to come to a final conslusion. It is unfortunate. It is not expected from such a Senior Officer to avoid giving his own final conclusion on the basis of the inquiry made by him. The reason is best known to him. The case has been heard today. The main dispute is whether Reena Devi, the complainant, has applied for the post of Aaganwadi Sahayika or for the post of Aaganwai Karyakatri.
Learned Standing Counsel produced the record. The application dated 31.1.2012 moved by Reena Devi has been produced before the Court. In the application, there is signature of Reena Devi. In this application, she has applied for the post of Aaganwadi Sahayika. It is the case of the Child Development Officer that Reena Devi applied for the post of Aaganwadi Sahayika and not Aaganwadi Karyakatri and on the basis of her application she has been appointed as Aaganwadi Sahahika and she has not been considered for the post of Aaganwadi Karyakatri. The allegation of Reena Devi is that the said application has been inserted by the forged signature and the said application has not been filed by her. It is the case of Reena Devi that she has applied for the post of Aaganwadi Karyakatri and her original application has been removed.
In view of the above, I am of the view that it is necessary to ascertain whether the signature of Reena Devi, on the application, which is the part of the record and produced by Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel during the course of argument is genuine or not. It is claimed that Reena Devi has filed a fresh application on 12.8.2011 for the post of Aaganwadi Karyakatri. In the said application also there is signature of Reena Devi on 11.8.2011. Since various administrative authorities are involved in this matter and their statements are contradictory, the Court is of the view that let the signature of Reena Devi be verified through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh. Smt. Chinta Devi, the Child Development Officer, is directed to produce both the applications within a period of one week. Reena Devi is also directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh within a period of one week. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh is directed to get the signature verified through Hand Writing Expert within a period of three weeks. The expenses of the Hand Writing Expert shall be borne by the State Government. On furnishing of the bill by the Hand Writing Expert, the District Magistrate, Azamgarh is directed to pay the expenses to him.
List on 22.8.2012 showing the name of Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the respondent.
Order Date :- 24.7.2012
OP
