Allowed

Balram Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC5 Nov 2020WRIC/22691/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the appointment of Respondent No. 6 on grounds of forgery in his educational documents. The Court held that factual inquiry on forgery cannot be examined in a writ petition and directed the immediate authority to investigate the complaint while providing the respondent an opportunity to be heard.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 4 to examine the complaint regarding alleged forgery with due hearing rights provided to the respondent.

Balram Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22691 of 2019 Petitioner :- Balram Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhanshu Pratap Singh,Ram Chandra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kailash Singh Kushwaha,Shivendra Nath Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶4

The petitioners herein seek a direction to conduct an inquiry into the complaint made by them regarding forgery made by the respondent No.6 in his educational testimonials for securing appointment on the post of Driver in the office of the Joint Commissioner (Administration), State Excise, Varanasi.

¶5

The claim for initiating inquiry in the writ petition are based on certain documents with tabulation sheet and certificate and mark-sheet of High School and Intermediate Examinations of the respondent No. 6.

¶6

The submission of the petitioners is that the correct date of birth of respondent No.6 is 3.2.1072, whereas, a wrong date of birth has been recorded in the High School certificate of the year 2005.

¶7

Sri Pradeep Mishra, learned counsel holding brief of Sri S.N. Singh, appearing for the respondent No.6 is present. No counter affidavit has been called for and as such, the same has not been filed.

¶8

Be that as it may, inquiry into the allegations made in the writ petition being factual in nature cannot be examined by the Court in the writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the direction that the respondent No.4 shall examine the complaint made by the petitioners with regard to the alleged forgery in the documents submitted by the respondent No.6 for securing appointment on the post of Driver. Due opportunity of hearing shall be provided to the respondent No.6 and an expeditious decision shall be taken by the respondent No.4 as early as possible, in accordance with law.

¶9

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion as to the merit of the claim of the parties.

¶10

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 5.11.2020 sfa/

Balram Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balram Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Lal Saraswat Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

C/M, Sham-E-Husaini Institute of Nursing and Paramedical College and Hospital and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Noorjahan and Another Vs U P Avas and Vikas Parishad and 2 Others

M/S Bindal and Bindal Batteries Private Limited Vs the District Magistrate and 3 Others

Chandrama Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prem Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others