Smt.Ketki Devi W.P.No.1875/Ss/2007 vs State Of U.P.Through Secy. Mahila Evam ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 15734 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt.Ketki Devi W.P.No.1875/Ss/2007 vs State Of U.P.Through Secy. Mahila Evam ... on 6 May, 2024

Author: Rajan Roy

Bench: Rajan Roy

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34887-DB
 
Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 561 of 2012
 

 
Appellant :- Smt.Ketki Devi W.P.No.1875/Ss/2007
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Secy. Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Lko.And Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- J.N.Singh,Anurag Shukla,D.S. Chaube,Jai Prakash Narain Tiwari,Pratiyush Chaube,Raj Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nand Kishor Singh,R.A.Khan
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
 

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

1. Heard.

2. This special appeal challenging the judgment dated 16.07.2012 by means of which the writ petition of the respondent has been allowed and the petitioner-appellant's appointment as female worker in Aganwadi has been quashed. The engagement of female worker was on honorarium basis.

3. The only contention raised before us is that the respondent had already obtained appointment in her maternal village based on a domicile certificate issued there, but concealing the said fact she applied in the village where she had been married. Both the appellant and the respondent secured same marks. Learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition only on the ground that the respondent being older in age was entitled for being engaged ignoring the fact that there was concealment on behalf of the respondent about her earlier engagement in her maternal village based on a different domicile certificate. However, learned Standing Counsel says that the fact of the matter is that after getting married she became a resident of the village where she had been appointed and she had forgone her claim, if any, in her maternal village. Moreover, we find that the writ petition was filed in the year 2007, initially an interim order was passed which was quashed in appeal and the matter was remanded back and thereafter the petition of the respondent has been allowed on 16.07.2012. We are now in 2024.

4. On being asked, learned Counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that the appellant has never worked in pursuance to her initial appointment because it was stayed by the Writ Court and on a challenge being made in appeal, the matter was remanded back, but then the writ petition itself was allowed.

5. We find it very difficult to enter into this controversy at this belated stage considering the age of the appellant who is said to be about 48 years of age. Even otherwise, we find that the respondent having married was a resident of the village where she was married and, therefore, having secured equal marks vis-a-vis the petitioner, being older in age she was offered appointment, this is not a fit case for interference in intra-court appeal.

6. Dismissed.

(Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.)

Order Date :- 6.5.2024

Anand Sri./-