Dismissed

Smt.Saroj Pandey v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2022WRIA/1691/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge writ petition challenged the eligibility of a respondent for appointment to a Panchayat Assistant post due to her father's disqualification. The Court held that the father resigned before the application forms were submitted, rendering the respondent eligible, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the respondent was not disqualified on the relevant date as her father resigned before form submission.

Smt.Saroj Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 37

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1691 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt.Saroj Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.

¶5

The petitioner and the respondent no. 6 both had applied for being appointed as Panchayat Assistant/Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operator.

¶6

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no.6 since was the daughter of a member of Gram Panchayat she could not be appointed as a Panchayat Assistant/Accountant-cum-Date Entry Operator.

¶7

However, as per the application which the petitioner himself had made on 5.10.2021 it is clear that on 12.7.2021 the father of the respondent no. 6 had resigned from being a member of the Gram Panchayat.

¶8

Section 12-F of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, on this issue, is clear that when a member resigns from his office, it is deemed that the post falls vacant.

¶9

Since Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla has relied upon Section 12-F of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, the same is being reproduced here as under:-

¶10

"12-F. Registration. - A Pradhan, or a member of Gram Panchayat may, by writing under his hand addressed to such authority as may be prescribed, resign his office and his office shall thereupon become vacant."

¶11

Having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, the Court is of the view that since the father of the respondent

¶12

no. 6 had resigned on 12.7.2021 and the forms were submitted thereafter, it shall be deemed that the father of the respondent no. 6 had resigned before the forms were submitted. The respondent no. 6 was, therefore, not disqualified on the relevant date.

¶13

The writ petition hence lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 28.3.2022 PK

¶15

(Siddhartha Varma,J.)

¶16

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR Date: 2022.03.28 17:12:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt.Saroj Pandey v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Saroj Pandey 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

Sunita Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lalit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Samaresh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kiran Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others