Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2478 (ALL)

Prem Shila Singh v. State of U. P. and Others

2011-10-31

RAJES KUMAR

body2011
Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. With the consent of both the parties, the writ petition is being disposed at this stage. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a widow and the respondent no.6 is also widow. Under the Government Order dated 16.12.2003 in case where the widows are not available, only then the candidate holding the BPL certificate can be considered but in case where the widows are available, the income will not be a relevant consideration and in case where there are two widows then the selection will be made on the basis of educational qualification. In the present case, both the petitioner as well as respondent no.6 are widows. Therefore, the income of both the ladies with regard to the appointment should not be considered and the appointment be made on the basis of the educational qualification. While the District Magistrate, Chandauli in the impugned order has affirmed the appointment of the respondent no.6 on the ground that the petitioner does not hold the BPL certificate and the respondent no.6, Pramila Singh holds BPL certificate, which is not relevant consideration. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that since the respondent no.6, Pramila Singh was holding BPL certificate, therefore, the appointment is in accordance to law and has been rightly made. 5. I do not find any substance in the argument of learned Standing Counsel. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that since the respondent no.6, Pramila Singh was holding BPL certificate, therefore, the appointment is in accordance to law and has been rightly made. 5. I do not find any substance in the argument of learned Standing Counsel. The selection process is provided in the Government Order dated 16.12.2003, which reads as follows: p;u izfdz;k& bu inksa gsrq ojh;rk fuEu izdkj fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gS% ¼d½ loZizFke visf{kr vgZrk j[kus okyh mlh xkWo dh fuokfluh fo/kok efgykA ¼[k½ fo/kok efgyk miyC/k u gksus dh n’kk esa mlh xkWo dh fuokfluh rykd’kqnk efgykA ¼x½ fo/kok rFkk rykd’kqnk efgyk ds miyC/k u gksus dh n’kk esa xjhch js[kk ds uhps thou&;kiu djus okyh efgykvksa esa lsA vk; ds lEcU/k esa lEcfU/kr rglhynkj dk izek.k i= gh ekU; gksxkA ¼?k½ ;fn mijksDr esa ls dksbZ Hkh vH;FkhZ miyC/k u gks rks xjhch js[kk ds mij dh vgZ ik= efgyk dks Hkh dk;Zd=hZ ds in ij p;u gsrq ik= ekuk tk;sxk ysfdu mlh xkWo dh fuoklh gksuk vfuok;Z gSA ¼M-½ ;fn vkWxuokMh dsUnz [kksys tkus okys xzke esa dsoy ,d gh fo/kok] ryk’kdqnk vFkok xjhch js[kk ls uhps thou&;kiu djus okyh efgyk visf{kr vgZrk j[krh gS] rks mldks p;u lfefr dh laLrqfr ij ekuns; ij fu;qDr dj fn;k tk;sxk ijUrq ;fn ,d ls vf/kd fo/kok] ;k ,d ls vf/kd rykd’kqnk vFkok ,d ls vf/kd xjhch js[kk ls uhps thou&;kiu djus okyh efgyk ik=rk dh Js.kh esa vkrh gS] rks mldk p;u ,d p;u lfefr ds ek/;e ls fd;k tk;sxkA p;u lfefr }kjk dksbZ lk{kkRdkj ugh fy;k tk;sxk dsoy ik= efgykvks }kjk gkbZLdwy rFkk mlls mPp f’k{kk izkIr vH;FkhZ dh Js.kh ds vk/kkj ij fu/kkZfjr vad dk ;ksx djds esfjV fyLV cuk;h tk;sxhA 6. Perusal of the aforesaid Government Order reveals that in case where the widow ladies are not available then the candidate below the poverty line is to be considered. In case, where the widows are available then the income of candidate is not relevant and the claim of both the widows are to be examined by the selection committee on the basis of the education qualification The District Magistrate has upheld the appointment of the resondent no.6, Pramila Singh only on the ground that she holds BPL certificate and educational qualification of the petitioner as well the respondent no.6, Pramila Singh has not been examined. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the District Magistrate, Chandauli, dated 13.04.2011 is not sustainable. The matter is remanded back to the District Magistrate, Chandauli to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner as well respondent no.6 in the light of the aforesaid Government Order dated 16.12.2003 and the observations made above. _____________