C.M. Application No. 49224 of 2008
IN
Special Appeal (D) No. 342 of 2008 (S/B)
****
Hon’ble C.K. Prasad,CJ
Hon’ble Y.K. Sangal,J
This application has been filed for condoning
the delay in filing the appeal.
According to Stamp Reporter, the appeal is
barred by limitation by 23 days.
Various reasons, which prevented the appellant
from filing the appeal within time, have been
enumerated in the affidavit filed in support of the
application.
We are of the opinion that the same constitute
sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the
appeal.
Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is
condoned.
Application stands allowed.
(C.K. Prasad,CJ)
(Y.K. Sangal,J)
Date: 21.01.2010.
RK/
Special Appeal (D) No. 342 of 2008 (S/B)
Seema Devi vs. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Pratapgarh and others
****
Hon’ble C.K. Prasad,CJ
Hon’ble Y.K. Sangal,J
Writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by order dated 10.4.2008
passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5229 (S/S) of
2007, has preferred this appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the High
Court Rules.
Writ petitioner-appellant as also respondent no. 4 were
candidates for engagement as Shiksha Mitra in a Primary School
situated in village Rastipur within Tehsil Raniganj in the district
of Pratapgarh.
Writ petitioner was found to be inferior in merit than
respondent no. 4 but she challenged her appointment on the
ground she is ineligible as she is not the resident of village
Rastipur where the Primary School is situated.
An inquiry was conducted in which it was found that
respondent no. 4 is the resident of village Rastipur where the
School is situated and accordingly, her appointment was upheld.
Mr. O.P. Srivastava, appearing on behalf of the appellant,
submits that from the family register as also the voter list, it
would be evident that respondent no. 4 is the resident of village
Vishnupur Kala and therefore, the finding recorded by the
authority that she is the resident of village Rastipur is fit to be set
aside and once it is so done, appointment of respondent no. 4
shall automatically be rendered illegal.
We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr.
Srivastava. A local inspection was made by the authority and it
has been found that respondent no. 4 has constructed a house in
village Rastipur in the year 1987 and is living there since then.
In that view of the matter, the conclusion arrived at by the
authority that she is the resident of village Rastipur cannot be
said to be perverse calling for interference in this appeal.
We are of the opinion that the consideration of the matter
by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error calling
for interference in this appeal.
We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed
accordingly.
(Y.K. Sangal,J) (C.K. Prasad,CJ)
Date: 21.01.2010.
RK/