Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2021 (ALL)

Anita v. State of U. P. and Others

2012-09-04

RAJES KUMAR

body2012
Rajes Kumar, J.— Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner along with respondent no. 4 applied for the post of Mini Aaganbari Karyakatri in Village Purwa Bhikhani, Vikas Khand Sahar, Tehsil Bidhuna, District Auraiya. The petitioner claimed that she had the BPL Card and is fully qualified to be appointed as Mini Aaganbari Karykatri. The petitioner also filed a complaint against respondent no. 4 about her income certificate. However, respondent no. 3 has appointed respondent no. 4 on the post of Mini Aaganbari Karyakatri. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3340 of 2012, Smt. Anita Vs. State of U.P. and others which has been disposed of vide order dated 18.1.2012 with the following direction : "As serious allegation in regard to manipulation has been levelled, as such District Magistrate is directed to get inquiry conducting in the matter preferably within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of the order passed by this Court. Needless to say in the inquiry which would be conducted therein opportunity be also provided to Smt. Shiva and reasoned decision shall be taken. It is clarified that order impugned in the present writ petition shall abide by fresh decision which would be taken by the District Magistrate." The petitioner filed the representation along with certified copy of the order before the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate vide order dated 21.5.2012 has rejected the representation of the petitioner which is impugned in the writ petition. When the matter came up for consideration on 28.8.2012 the following order has been passed : The contention of the petitioner is that though the enquiry proceeding is going on and the Additional District Magistrate wrote a letter dated 28.5.2012 to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to make the inquiry on the complaint of the petitioner and in turn the Sub Divisional Magistrate wrote a letter on 21.6.2012 to the Tehsildar and a report has been given by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 14.7.2012 and 25.7.2012 Annexure-9 to the writ petition, but without considering the said report, the District Magistrate has passed the impugned order on 21.5.2012 rejecting the representation of the petitioner, which prima facie appears to be unjustified." Learned Standing Counsel was directed to file affidavit of District Magistrate, Auraiya. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the then District Magistrate, Auraiya who has passed the impugned order dated 21.5.2012 has been transferred to Banda and Sri Lal Mani Mishra is the new District Magistrate, Auraiya, who has filed the affidavit of compliance. In paragraphs- 3 and 4 of the affidavit it is stated that I have perused the entire file and came to the conclusion that the observation made by the Hon'ble Court is correct and it is submitted that the Hon'ble Court has rightly observed that the order dated 21.5.2012 rejecting the representation of the petitioner, is prima facie, appears to be unjustified. It appears that the then District Magistrate without considering the aforesaid reports, order has been passed. The Deponent is seeking unconditional apology on behalf o the then District Magistrate and on behalf of him for the inconvenience caused to this Hon'ble Court and the deponent is tendering the apology to the Court. It is further submitted that since the order dated 21.5.2012 has been passed without considering the aforesaid reports therefore, the deponent is of the opinion to cancel it and vide order dated 3.9.2012 the deponent has passed an order by which the order of the then District Magistrate dated 21.5.2012 has been cancelled. Now the deponent will pass a fresh order after having the reports dated 14.7.2012 and 25.7.2012 after giving full opportunity of hearing to both the parties. In view of the averments made in the affidavit the cause of the writ petition ceases to exist but the question remains to be answered that on account of illegal and arbitrary order passed by the District Magistrate the petitioner has been dragged to this Court and has been subjected to huge financial loss. Therefore, the Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled for the costs which the Court assess to the extent of Rs.5000/-. The respondent no. 2 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of one month from the date of submitting the certified copy of the order in accordance to law. The costs shall be paid by the State to the petitioner within a period of one month. However, it will be open to the State to recover the amount from the concerned officer. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. _