Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Devanti Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Devanti Bai vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jan 02, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1050035

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Devanti Bai

Advocate Shri. O.P.Kewat

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....stage. on perusal of the order passed by the learned single judge impugned in this writ appeal, it is clear that the grounds which were raised by the appellant/petitioner were considered. however, it was found that as far as the eligibility conditions and the dispute with respect to residence of the respondent no.5 in the local area were neither alleged as a ground in appeal or complaint made before the competent authority not any findings were given in this respect. learned single judge has taken note of the fact that since the qualified persons having the minimum eligibility qualifications were available and there was no question of giving preference to the appellant/petitioner, the findings were rightly recorded by the collector and commissioner in appeal. the same being the concurrent findings of fact, no question of interference was called for in exercise of power under article 226 of the constitution of india. it is further clear from the order impugned that the appellant/petitioner has been granted a liberty to raise the grounds in appropriate manner, with respect to the residence of the respondent no.5 while challenging her order of appointment before the competent authority in accordance to law. the said question was not required to be looked into in the writ petition because the same was never raised before the lower authority. in view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned single judge and in view of the liberty granted to the appellant/petitioner, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned single judge. the writ appeal being devoid of any substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. (s.a.bobde) (k.k.trivedi) chief justice judge. a.praj.

Full Judgment

W.A.No.1099/2012 02.01.2013 Shri O.P.Kewat, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Dy.

Advocate General for the respondents.

Heard on the question of admission.

This writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the M.P.Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, has been filed challenging the order dated 18.6.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.8409/2012, by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner has been dismissed.

It is contended that the legal grounds raised by the appellant were not considered by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition of the appellant at initial stage.

On perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge impugned in this writ appeal, it is clear that the grounds which were raised by the appellant/petitioner were considered.

However, it was found that as far as the eligibility conditions and the dispute with respect to residence of the respondent No.5 in the local area were neither alleged as a ground in appeal or complaint made before the competent authority not any findings were given in this respect.

Learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that since the qualified persons having the minimum eligibility qualifications were available and there was no question of giving preference to the appellant/petitioner, the findings were rightly recorded by the Collector and Commissioner in appeal.

The same being the concurrent findings of fact, no question of interference was called for in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It is further clear from the order impugned that the appellant/petitioner has been granted a liberty to raise the grounds in appropriate manner, with respect to the residence of the respondent No.5 while challenging her order of appointment before the competent authority in accordance to law.

The said question was not required to be looked into in the writ petition because the same was never raised before the lower authority.

In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and in view of the liberty granted to the appellant/petitioner, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

The writ appeal being devoid of any substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

(S.A.Bobde) (K.K.Trivedi) Chief Justice Judge.

A.Praj.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial