RENU PILAKHWAL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
District Magistrate and others
Click here to view full judgement.
Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. -
(1.) AT the outset, it is pertinent to mention that none has turned up on behalf of Smt. Asha respondent no. 5, who has sufficiently been served and vakalatnama on her behalf has been filed by Mr. Dinesh Chauhan. The matter has been heard with substantial facts on the urgency application, so this Court is propensus to decide this writ petition finally. The challenge in this petition is to the appointment order dated 09.08.2011 issued by Child Development Project Officer to appoint Smt. Asha as Aganbari Karykarti in Village Bangchudi, Post Jethai, District Bageshwar. Petitioner also hails from the same village. Both applied for the same post of Aganbari Karykarti wherefor having a BPL Card was inter alia one of the pre -requisites. Petitioner and Smt. Asha, both are BPL cardholders but the contention of the petitioner is that Smt. Asha procured the BPL Card belying her economic status. Since her husband is a Member of Block Panchayat, so he exerted his influence upon Supervisor Kanoongo for endorsing a favourable report, so as to drive the competent officer to issue the BPL Card in her favour.
(2.) IT has been alleged that Smt. Asha possessed the BPL card in 2002 - 03 as per economic status of her family but due to passage of time her family made formidable advancements in their economic status. As much as 1.620 hectare of land was shown in name of Nandan Singh, father -in -law of Smt. Asha. Narendra Singh, husband of Asha, is also a contractor in PWD. He is having a Bolero Car in the name of his kith and kin but in fact he uses that car, so he is de facto owner of the same. Pradhan of the Village Smt. Mohini Devi made a complaint in this regard to the competent authority narrating all the above facts, praying for the cancellation of BPL Card of Smt. Asha. The same was cancelled in the list prepared in 2009 but husband of Smt. Asha by dint of his influence over the Revenue Sub Inspector could be able to manage the report in his favour and became successful to procure the BPL Card again. This had been done in connivance with Regional Revenue Sub Inspector. When an inquiry was conducted by Naib Tehsildar, who is a responsible and superior officer of the Regional Revenue Sub Inspector, he verified the allegations of Pradhan but the Chief Development Officer, just on the mechanical basis, relying upon the report of Regional Revenue Sub Inspector overlooked the inquiry report of the Naib Tehsildar.
(3.) THE Court feels that Chief Development Officer, District Panchayat Raj Officer and District Programme Officer have signed the report mechanically without ratifying the true facts, so this report of CDO is not believable and liable to be set aside. The Court finds that report of Naib Tehsildar is relatively true and the BPL Card issued to Smt. Asha de hors the rules and against the spirit of law wherefor the provisions have been made to issue such cards.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.