Sarita Devi Verma @ Sarita Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3485

Court No. - 5

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10999 of 2024

Petitioner :- Sarita Devi Verma @ Sarita Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko And 5 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Chhote Lal Yadav,Jitendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Piyush Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5 and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

¶8

With the consent of the parties the matter is being decided finally.

¶9

There is consensus at bar that the facts of the case have already been noted in detail by this Court in the order dated 22.11.2022. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 22.11.2022 is reproduced below:

¶10

"Heard Sri C.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Uday Veer Singh,learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Mohan Singh,learned counsel for the respondent no.6.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the notification dated 07.06.2024, the petitioner had applied for the post of Panchayat Sahayak/Accountant cum Data entry operator. However, since Secretary,Gram Panchayat who had to receive the application was not available, therefore on his instruction,the application was received on 25.06.2024 by Gram Pradhan. The Secretary,Gram Panchayat came and gave receipt on 06.07.2024. The Gram Pradhan and Secretary have admitted it in their statements. The Gram Panchayat selected the name of the petitioner for the post. However, on some complaint, a committee was constituted and enquiry was made. The enquiry report has been submitted by the B.D.O. on 30.08.2024 recommending for selection of the petitioner but till date no decision has been taken by the competent authority i.e. respondent no.3.

¶12

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel does not dispute the aforesaid. However, he submits that he has no instructions as to whether any decision has been taken on the report dated 30.08.2024 contained in Annexure No.9 to the writ petition or not. He prays for and is granted a week's time to seek instructions as to why decision has not been taken till date and who is responsible for it.

¶13

As prayed, list on 29.11.2024 as fresh."

¶14

From a perusal of the aforesaid order as well as arguments as raised by the learned counsel for contesting parties and perusal of the record, it emerges that the petitioner was an aspirant for the post of Panchayat Sahayat/ Accountant-cum-Data Operator in pursuance to the advertisement dated 07.06.2024, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the writ petition. The last date fixed for receipt of the applications was 30.06.2024. The petitioner claims to have submitted her application for the post of Panchayat Sahayak on 25.06.2024 but the receipt thereof has been given on 06.07.2024 with the result that the case of the petitioner for appointment on the said post was not processed.

¶15

This Court had required to learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions.

¶16

Today, leaned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions sent by District Panchayat Raj Officer, Barabanki dated 27.12.2024 states that as the last date fixed for receipt of the applications was 30.06.2024 and the petitioner had submitted her application on 06.07.2024, consequently, the case of the petitioner has not been processed.

¶17

The aforesaid instructions sent by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Barabanki are found to be patently fallacious inasmuch as in terms of the advertisement dated 07.06.2024 the last date fixed for receipt of the application was 30.06.2024. A perusal of the statement given by the Gram Pradhan, a copy of which is annexure-6 to the writ petition, would indicate that the application of the petitioner was submitted on 25.06.2024

¶18

before the Gram Pradhan. The Gram Pradhan had duly informed the Gram Vikas Adhikari Sri Vinod Kumar Gautam on 26.06.2024 of the application having been received to which Sri Vinod Kumar responded that the Gram Pradhan should keep the application of the petitioner in her custody and he would be issuing a receipt thereof. It is only when Sri Vinod Kumar Gautam i.e. the Gram Vikas Adhikari reached on 06.07.2024 that the receipt has been issued.

¶19

Statement of the Gram Pradhan is duly supported by the statement of the Gram Vikas Adhikari Sri Vinod Kumar Gautam, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure- 7 to the writ petition which infact has been considered by the Committee in its report dated 30.08.2024 a copy of which has been filed as Annexure -9 to the writ petition, wherein it has been indicated that the selection of the petitioner on the post is in accordance with rules.

¶20

Once the petitioner has submitted her application within time fixed as per the advertisement and it is the authorities who are responsible for giving the receipt thereof and on account of whose action the receipt has been issued belatedly although the application in turn had been received within time consequently, there was no occasion for non consideration of the case of the petitioner on the ground of her application having been received beyond the time fixed for receipt of application i.e. beyond 30.6.2024.

¶21

Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the competent authority, which is said to be a Committee headed by the District Magistrate, to look into the matter keeping in view the observation made above and a final decision shall be taken with regard to the appointment of the petitioner in accordance with rules and the relevant government

¶22

orders.

¶23

Let such a decision may be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶24

Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Reena/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sarita Devi Verma @ Sarita Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarita Devi Verma @ Sarita Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jitendra Kumar Dixit vs Managing Dir. of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Tehri Kothi Lko. and 2 Ors.

Durgesh Kumar Shukla vs U.P. Forest Corporation Indiranagar Lko. Thru. Its Managing Director and 2 Others

National Highways Authority of India Thru. Project Director vs Amarnath and Ors.

Jagannath Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Govt. of U.P. and 3 Others

Yashvir Singh Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Telecommunication Govt. of India New Delhi and 2 Others

Ram Samujh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance Govt. Lko and 4 Others