Allowed

siyawati v. state of u.p. and 3 others

Allahabad HC2 May 2019SPLA/1287/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this special appeal, the court allowed the appeal and directed that the Single Judge's dismissal of the appellant's writ petition regarding her appointment as an Aganwari Karyakatri be set aside, noting that similar identical claims by colleagues were previously allowed.

What did the court decide?

The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The special appeal and writ petition are allowed.

siyawati Vs state of u.p. and 3 others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1287 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Siyawati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

The appellant was appointed as a Aganwari Karyakatri along with two other similarly placed Aganwari Karyakatri namely Anita Devi and Laxmi Devi. They have filed a joint writ petition No.23903 of 2016 (Smt. Anita Devi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) challenging the termination. The said writ petition was disposed of on 24.5.2016 directing the respondents to consider their cause and pass a fresh order. In compliance thereof, the District Programme Officer rejected their claim vide order dated 9.11.2016. Two separate writ petitions were filed. One Aganwari Karyakatri, Laxmi Devi filed a writ petition No.6607 of 2017(Smt. Laxmi Devi Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others). The said writ petition was allowed on 16.2.2017 and the respondents were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for the appointment on post of Aganwari Karyakatri in accordance with law. Another Aganwari Karyakatri, Anita Devi also filed a separate writ petition No.23878 of 2017, the said writ petition was allowed. The relevant part of the order reads as under :-

¶6

"Accordingly, the order impugned dated 9.11.2016 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the third respondent - District Programme Officer, Auraiya to pass a fresh order in the light of aforesaid decisions. If the the third respondent finds that selection in which the petitioner has been selected was over prior to issuance of the Govt. Order dated 4.9.2012, then he will pass necessary orders for her appointment.

¶7

With the above directions, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to costs."

¶8

The petitioner had also filed a writ petition no.44595 of 2017 (Siyawati Vs.

¶9

State of U.P. and 3 others), however the said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has preferred this special appeal. It is contented on behalf of the appellant that against the same impugned order, three separate writ petitions have been filed. Two writ petitions mentioned as writ petition No.6607 of 2017 and writ petition No.23878 of 2017 have been allowed by this Court and the impugned order have been set aside in both the petitions.

¶10

It is contended that the case of petitioner and two other petitioners, Laxmi Devi and Anita Devi are similar and identical but petitioner's writ petition has been dismissed without adverting to the facts that the impugned order by which claim of all the three persons, namely, Laxmi Devi, Anita Devi and the petitioner are same.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel has failed to point out that the appellant is not similarly situated person. Hence we find that there is no justification to dismiss the writ petition, where the impugned order itself was set aside in the aforesaid two writ petitions. We set aside the order of the learned Single Judge.

¶12

With the aforesaid observation, special appeal and writ petition, both are allowed .

¶13

Order Date :- 2.5.2019 S. Singh

siyawati v. state of u.p. and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

siyawati v. state of u.p. and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Singh and Another Vs Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority

Nagar Nigam Bareilly and Another Vs Guru Prasad Saxena

Rajkumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Krishna Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

C/M Babu Singh Vidhyalaya Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Arun Kumar Vs Union of India and 3 Others