Allahabad High Court
Smt. Rita Devi vs State Of U.P.Thru Secy.Dept.Of Medical ... on 24 September, 2019
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 17 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 26335 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt. Rita Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Secy.Dept.Of Medical Health &Services &Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Pheran Dwivedi,Seema Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jai Kumar Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 4 and Sri Jai Kumar, learned Counsel for opposite party no.5.
By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought a direction to the Chief Medical Officer, Shravasti (opposite party no.3) to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 24.08.2019 within the stipulated time fixed by this Court.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has made a complaint to the opposite party no.3 with regard to the irregularities committed while selecting Smt. Arti Devi wife of Dinesh Kumar on the post of "Asha Bahu" in place of petitioner. The petitioner has sent representation to the opposite party no.3 stating therein that her name has been recommended by the Gram Panchayat for the post of "Asha Bahu". He further submits that interest of justice would be suffice, if the opposite parties is directed to consider and decide the complaint/ representation dated 24.08.2019 within the time frame fixed by this Court.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the appointment for the post of "Asha Bahu" has not been made as yet, therefore, there is no force in the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner that Smt. Arti Devi has been selected in place of petitioner. Hence, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be allowed and there is no good ground made in the petition.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
After perusal of the proposal (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) and the representation dated 24.08.2019 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and also the complaint (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) made by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to direct the opposite party no.3 to decide the representation dated 24.08.2019, in accordance with law.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the opposite party no.3 is directed to consider and decide the representation dated 24.08.2019, in accordance with law, expeditiously within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.9.2019 akverma