Disposed

Pratibha Kumari v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2021WRIA/1204/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding a petitioner's claim for a change of allotted district. It held that the matter should be decided by the competent authority and issued mandamus for the concerned officer to decide the representation within three months via a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Writ in the nature of mandamus issued directing respondent No. 3 to decide the representation for district allocation within three months via a self-attested computerized reasoned order.

Pratibha Kumari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1204 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Pratibha Kumari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shams Tabrez Alam Ansari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shams Tabrez Alam Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

Sri Shams Tabrez Alam Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had entered incorrect marks in the application form. The error was inadvertent. Consequent to the error, the petitioner is being denied the benefit of change of allotted district. Reliance is placed on Government Order dated 4.12.2020 to contend that inadvertent errors in the application form are liable to be condoned. The petitioner has made an application in regard to her change of allotted district after condoning the error made in the application form and considering the correct marks of the petitioner.

¶7

The only prayer made by Sri Shams Tabrez Alam Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the representation of the petitioner dated 14.12.2020 be decided within stipulated period of time.

¶8

Per contra learned Standing Counsel contends that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the Government Order since she has already been granted appointment. He however admits that the applicability of the Government Order to the facts of the present case be decided by the competent authority in the first instance.

¶9

In view of the above, no useful purpose will be served by keeping this writ petition pending. With the consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally.

¶10

The matter is remitted to respondent No. 3/ Zila Basic Siksha Adhikar, Shahjahanpur.

¶11

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent No. 3/ Zila Basic Siksha Adhikar, Shahjahanpur to execute the following directions:

¶12

The respondent No. 3/ Zila Basic Siksha Adhikar, Shahjahanpur shall decide the representation of the petitioner for her claim for change of allotted district by a reasoned order within a period of three months from the receipt of copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad along with fresh copy of representation. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the party concerned. The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶13

It is clarified that this Court has not considered the controversy on merits. The same shall be decided by the respondent No. 3/ Zila Basic Siksha Adhikar, Shahjahanpur in accordance with law after independent application of mind.

¶14

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 8.2.2021/Nadeem Ahmad

Pratibha Kumari v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratibha Kumari v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Prabhakar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Nirmala Devi Vs Nayab Tehsildar Tehsil Kasia and 2 Others

Om Nath Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Jag Mohan Vs D.D.C. and Others

Navneet Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jasveer Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others