BARU DUTT AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Baru Dutt And Others
State of Uttarakhand and another
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the genesis of this petition is recruitment on the post of Instructor (Stenography) in ITI Badkot, Uttarkashi (for brevity "Institution"). In that institution, applicant no. 1 Baru Dutt, was working as Senior Clerk while applicant no. 3 was working as Principal (unnamed). Aforesaid post was fallen vacant, consequently, names were asked from the District Employment Exchange for recruitment. It is alleged that four names were forwarded by the Employment Exchange wherein name of Shanta Devi, wife of Baru Dutt, was also there.
(2.) The allegations are that Baru Dutt had connivance with the Principal and had also exerted his influence over the Appointing Authority, who was none other than Principal, for appointment of his wife (applicant no. 2 Shanta Devi) on the said post. It was further alleged that as per total marks, respondent no. 2 Udai Singh got two marks more than Shanta Devi. Besides, it was also a mandatory condition for appointment that applicant should be a permanent resident of District Uttarkashi. If such candidate is not available, then Appointing Authority can recruit applicant of adjoining District. This condition has been adverted in the letter dated 2696/Au. Vi. /166-Shram/ 2001 issued by Joint Director (Training), Garhwal Region, Dehradun.
(3.) Respondent no. 2 feeling disgruntled with the decision of Appointing Authority went in litigation before this High Court in civil side but he lost. At the same time, he moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 13.01.2010 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who after getting the report from police, rejected this application on 05.02.2010. A revision no. 01 of 2010 was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi, who passed an elaborate and well discussed order on 21.04.2010 and thereby requested the Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass fresh order in the light of observations made in his judgment. After perusing the said observations, Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order dated 24.04.2010 for registration and investigation of the case. Order of Sessions Judge was assailed by way of this revision. This Court vide order dated 06.05.2010 stayed the operation of order dated 21.04.2010 passed by Sessions Judge but by that time matter has been registered at the police station on 07.05.2010 however, Investigating Officer has stopped the investigation.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.