Smt. Sandhya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Smt. Sandhya vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 25, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1042893

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1042893
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jul 25, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Smt. Sandhya

Advocate Shri. Bhoopendra Shukla

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Advocate Shri. Rajmani Singroul

Excerpt

.....sakri, gram panchayat sonpur tahsil rehli district sagar. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the collector as well as the commissioner have erred in properly appreciating the evidence inasmuch as they have ignored the fact that the respondent no.5 is not a local resident and her name appears in the voter list of village parsaikhurd. on the basis of aforesaid submission, it is submitted that the impugned order be quashed. the learned counsel for the respondent no.5 on caveat submits that the objections in respect of residence of the petitioner as well as respondent no.5 were raised during the pendency of the appeal before the collector who had got the matter enquired into by the tahsildar, who, in turn, had given separate certificates to the effect that the petitioner as well as the respondent no.5 both are residents of village sakri, gram panchayat, sonpur, tahsil rehli district sagar and therefore the contention of the petitioner to this effect deserves to be rejected. having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and having perused the impugned order dated 29.06.2012 passed by the collector, sagar, it is observed that the collector has taken into account the report of the tahsildar while deciding the appeal of the respondent no.5 and has recorded a finding to the effect that the certificates issued by the tahsildar, on an enquiry, in favour of both i.e.petitioner as well as respondent no.5, indicates that both of them are residents of village sakri, gram panchayat, sonpur, tahsil rehli, district sagar. it is observed that the collector has infact allowed the appeal of the respondent no.5 only on the ground that she is older than the petitioner as both of them have obtained equal marks i.e.40 each as provided and prescribed in the policy of the state government. the commissioner has affirmed the findings of the collector. as there is a concurrent findings regarding residence of the petitioner as well as respondent no.5.....

Full Judgment

W.P.No.11959/2013 (Smt Sandhya versus State of MP and otheRs.25.07.2013 Heard Shri Bhoopendra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajmani Singroul, learned counsel for respondent no 5 on caveat, on the question of admission as well as interim relief.

The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 18.06.2013 passed by the respondent No.2, the Additional Commissioner, Sagar, Division Sagar whereby the order passed by the Collector, Sagar dated 29.06.2012 has been affirmed and the respondent No.5 has been appointed as Mini Aganwadi Worker of village Sakri, Gram Panchayat Sonpur Tahsil Rehli District Sagar.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Collector as well as the Commissioner have erred in properly appreciating the evidence inasmuch as they have ignored the fact that the respondent No.5 is not a local resident and her name appears in the voter list of village Parsaikhurd.

On the basis of aforesaid submission, it is submitted that the impugned order be quashed.

The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 on caveat submits that the objections in respect of residence of the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 were raised during the pendency of the appeal before the Collector who had got the matter enquired into by the Tahsildar, who, in turn, had given separate certificates to the effect that the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5 both are residents of village Sakri, Gram Panchayat, Sonpur, Tahsil Rehli District Sagar and therefore the contention of the petitioner to this effect deserves to be rejected.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and having perused the impugned order dated 29.06.2012 passed by the Collector, Sagar, it is observed that the Collector has taken into account the report of the Tahsildar while deciding the appeal of the respondent No.5 and has recorded a finding to the effect that the certificates issued by the Tahsildar, on an enquiry, in favour of both i.e.petitioner as well as respondent No.5, indicates that both of them are residents of village Sakri, Gram Panchayat, Sonpur, Tahsil Rehli, District Sagar.

It is observed that the Collector has infact allowed the appeal of the respondent No.5 only on the ground that she is older than the petitioner as both of them have obtained equal marks i.e.40 each as provided and prescribed in the policy of the State Government.

The Commissioner has affirmed the findings of the Collector.

As there is a concurrent findings regarding residence of the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 and the order passed by the Collector as well as the Commissioner are in accordance with the policy of the State Government, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

The petition being meritless is accordingly dismissed.

(R.S.Jha) Judge msp

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Smt. Sandhya vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education