Disposed

Dilshad v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC4 Jun 2024WPMS/103/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the appointment of a Gram Pradhan, alleging lack of minimum academic qualification under Section 8(1)(q) of the Panchayati Raj Act. The Court directed the competent authority to conclude the pending inquiry within ten weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Competent Authority to conclude the inquiry within ten weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

WPMS No. 103 of 2024
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the
petitioner.

2.
Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for
the State.

3.
By
means
of
this
writ
petition,
petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

“(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding/directing
the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to take decision
on the application dated 03.08.2023, moved
by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2
expeditiously
as
possible
or
within
the
stipulated period fixed by this Hon’ble Court
and further be directed to the respondent nos.
1 and 2 that if the respondent no. 3 found
guilty, then criminal proceedings may be
initiated against the respondent no. 3.”
4.
According to the petitioner, respondent
no. 3 does not possess the minimum
academic qualification required for holding
the office of Gram Pradhan. He relies upon
Section 8(1)(q) of Panchayati Raj Act, which
provides that the academic qualification
needed for holding the office of Gram
Pradhan is middle/8^thpassed for candidates
belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes and Other Backward Class and
Women
category
and
for
others,
the
minimum qualification is 10^thstandard.

5.
Admittedly, respondent no. 3 is a
woman candidate, therefore, she is eligible if
she has passed 8^thstandard.

6.
Learned State Counsel has referred to
paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit,which

is reproduced below:- “4. That by means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought direction on the respondent State Authorities to take decision on the application dated 03.08.2023 (wrongly mentioned as 03.08.2022), moved by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2 expeditiously as possible or within the stipulated period fixed by this Hon’ble Court and further if the respondent no. 3 found guilty, then criminal proceedings may be initiated against the respondent no. 3. In this regard, it is humbly submitted that the complaint of the petitioner dated 03.08.2023 has been forwarded to the Chief Education Officer, Haridwar vide Office Letter No. 941 dated 27.09.2023 and Reminder Letter No. 1679 dated 22.02.2024 and after receipt of the report from the Chief Education Officer, Haridwar, necessary action will be taken on merit on the basis of Inquiry Report, which is still awaited. True/correct typed version/copy of the Letter dated 27.09.2023 and Reminder Letter dated 22.02.2024 are collectively being annexed as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit.”
7. The counter affidavit was filed on 15.03.2024. More than two months have gone by.
8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to conclude the inquiry referred to in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit within ten weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 04.06.2024 U.U.

is reproduced below:-
“4. That by means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has sought direction on
the respondent State Authorities to take
decision on the application dated 03.08.2023
(wrongly mentioned as 03.08.2022), moved
by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2
expeditiously
as
possible
or
within
the
stipulated period fixed by this Hon’ble Court
and further if the respondent no. 3 found
guilty, then criminal proceedings may be
initiated against the respondent no. 3.
In this regard, it is humbly submitted
that the complaint of the petitioner dated
03.08.2023 has been forwarded to the Chief
Education Officer, Haridwar vide Office Letter
No. 941 dated 27.09.2023 and Reminder
Letter No. 1679 dated 22.02.2024 and after
receipt of the report from the Chief Education
Officer, Haridwar, necessary action will be
taken on merit on the basis of Inquiry Report,
which is still awaited. True/correct typed
version/copy of the Letter dated 27.09.2023
and Reminder Letter dated 22.02.2024 are
collectively being annexed as Annexure No. 2
to this affidavit.”

7.
The counter affidavit was filed on
15.03.2024. More than two months have
gone by.

8.
The
writ
petition
is
accordingly
disposed
of
with
a
direction
to
the
Competent Authority to conclude the inquiry
referred to in paragraph 4 of the counter
affidavit within ten weeks from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
04.06.2024
U.U.

Dilshad v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilshad v. State of Uttarakhand

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

District Committee, Center of Indian Trade Union Haridwar Vs Registrar Trade Unions / Labour Commissioner Uttarakhad

Rajesh Verma Vs State of Uttarakhand

Abdul Javad Vs Director Rehabilitation/ District Magistrate Tehri Garhwal

Centre of Indian Trade Unions Vs Presiding Officer Central Govt Industrial Tribunal

Sri Nakli Singh Vs District Magistrate Haridwar

Harjinder Singh Banga Vs State of Uttarakhand