The Special Appeal challenging the dismissal of a petition quashing an appointment order is dismissed. The court held that an income certificate is valid for six months; verification done thereafter cannot invalidate the appointment based on subsequent income variations.
Special Appeal No. 438 of 2018 is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 39
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 438 of 2018
Appellant :- Smt. Renu Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
This Special Appeal seeks to assail the judgement and order dated 12 April 2018 by which Writ A No. 4374 of 2010 that was filed by the appellant for quashing the order dated 24 August 2009 was dismissed. The representation filed by the appellant against the appointment of respondent no. 6 (Savita Devi) as Anganbari Karyakatri was rejected by the aforesaid order dated 24 August 2009.
Respondent no. 6 (Savita Devi) was selected in 2007 as Anganbari Karyakatri and she is working till date. The writ petitioner alleged that the income certificate submitted by Savita Devi was not correct inasmuch as on enquiry it was found that income was more.
This contention has not been accepted by the District Magistrate for the reason that the income certificate issued on 31 January 2006 was valid for a period of six months only and any verification done after that period cannot be made a ground to conclude that the income shown on 31 January 2006 was not correct. It is for this reason that the learned Judge has also found no infirmity in the order passed by the District Magistrate.
Learned counsel for the appellant has again made same submission that when on enquiry it was found that lesser income has been shown in the income certificate, the appointment of respondent no. 6 (Savita Devi) should have been set aside.
It is not the case of the appellant that a forged income certificate was filed. What was sought to be contended is that the income mentioned in the income certificate was lesser than the actual income. This is based on verification done after a year. As per rule, the income certificate is valid for a period of six months only. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the income
certificate was not correct. The income could certainly vary after one year.
The Special Appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.5.2018 Arvind
(Dilip Gupta, J.) (Neeraj Tiwari, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appointment of an Anganbari Karyakatri should be set aside due to discrepancy in income discovered after the six-month validity period of the income certificate.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Renu Devi
State Of U.P.
Savita Devi
Dilip Gupta
Neeraj Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
