# Smt. Mamta Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2009) 3 ILRA 875
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-10-09
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52316 of 2009
- **Bench:** A.P. Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-mamta-srivastava-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41550
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Code of criminal Procedure-section-309-
during trail of case under section 147,
148, 323, 325, 504, 506,IPC- on mere
application of prosecution framed charge
additional for defense under section 302,
307,IPC-framed held- illegal- without
taking
any
evidence-
No
additional
charges can be framed -order liable to
set a side.

Held: Para 8

Therefore, in my opinion, in present case
also, after framing charges against the
accused persons, the court below was
not justified to frame additional charges
under section 302/149 and 307/149,
without taking any evidence.
Case law discussed:
2007 (1) ALL JIC 37, 2002 CBC 354.

## Text

3 All] Smt. Mamta Srivastava V. State of U.P. and others
875
calculated on the basis of the aggregate
marks of the high school and the
intermediate examinations. As pointed out
herein
above,
the
intermediate
examination which have been passed by
the petitioner can be co-related to the high
school examination of 1995 only and not
to the high school examination of 1988.

5. In this view of the matter, the
impugned order does not deserve any
interference as the petitioner himself has
not disputed the facts aforesaid.

6.

Since
the
petitioner
had
deliberately not disclosed the facts of the
results of High School in 1995 the same
having been discovered by the authorities
disentitles the petitioner from seeking any
appointment on the post in question.

7. Accordingly the writ petition
lacks merit and is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.10.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52316 of 2009

Smt. Mamta Srivastava
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.S. Verma
Sri Narendra Mohan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.S. Prasad
Sri D.D. Chauhan
S.C.

Constitution
of
India-
Article
226-
Appointment
of
Shiksha
Mitra
Challenged made on ground the village
Pradhan
is
'Chachia
Sas'
of
R.5
restriction
made
in
clause
3
of
9.0.1.7.2000- R 7 disqualify for being
appointed- held disruption given in G.O.
Can not be enlarged by the court-
petition misconceived dismissed.

Held: Para-4

The pronouncement of this Court in the
case of Gyan Pratap Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and others reported in 2005 (2) ESC
1199 and in the case of Sher Singh Vs.
State of U.P. and others reported in 2006
(1)
ESC
4
support
the
aforesaid
conclusion
drawn
by
the
Court.The
Government Order under consideration
was presumably brought about to clarify
the meaning of the word 'relative' as the
earlier Government Order on the subject
issued in the year 1999 was subjected to
challenge
the
validity
whereof
was
upheld by this Court in the decision
reported in 2002 (4) AWC 3065 Rashmi
Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. and others.
Case law discussed:
2005(2)ESC 1199
2006(1) ESC 4
2002(4) AWC 3065

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Narendra Mohan,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri
R.S. Prasad, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 5, learned counsel for the
Gaon Sabha and the learned standing
counsel.

2. The contention raised on behalf of
the petitioner is that the respondent no. 7Smt. Arti cannot be appointed as Shiksha
Mitra on the post in question, inasmuch
as, she happens to be a relative of the
Gram
Pradhan
and
is
therefore
disqualified in terms of Clause 3 of the
government Order dated 1st July, 2000. It
876 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
is urged that the Gram Pradhan of the
village is the 'Chachiya Sas' of the
respondent no. 7. Translated this means
that the Gram Pradhan is the wife of the
Uncle-in-law of the respondent no. 7. The
enumeration of relatives which have been
mentioned in Clause 3 of the Government
Order, are exhaustive, inasmuch as, the
word relative is followed by a transitive
verb "means", the objects whereof are the
specific relations defined therein.

3. In view of the same there is no
scope for this Court to include any other
relative apart from those defined in the
said Clause 3.

4. The pronouncement of this Court
in the case of Gyan Pratap Singh Vs. State
of U.P. and others reported in 2005 (2)
ESC 1199 and in the case of Sher Singh
Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in
2006 (1) ESC 4 support the aforesaid
conclusion drawn by the Court.The
Government Order under consideration
was presumably brought about to clarify
the meaning of the word 'relative' as the
earlier Government Order on the subject
issued in the year 1999 was subjected to
challenge the validity whereof was upheld
by this Court in the decision reported in
2002 (4) AWC 3065 Rashmi Dwivedi Vs.
State of U.P. and others.

5. Accordingly there is no merit in
the contention raised on behalf of the
petitioner and the writ petition is
accordingly dismissed.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.10.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2457 of 2004

Vijai Pandey and others ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri P.N. Tripathi
Sri M. Sarwar Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Bijendra Kumar Mishra
A.G.A.

Code of criminal Procedure-section-309-
during trail of case under section 147,
148, 323, 325, 504, 506,IPC- on mere
application of prosecution framed charge
additional for defense under section 302,
307,IPC-framed held- illegal- without
taking
any
evidence-
No
additional
charges can be framed -order liable to
set a side.

Held: Para 8

Therefore, in my opinion, in present case
also, after framing charges against the
accused persons, the court below was
not justified to frame additional charges
under section 302/149 and 307/149,
without taking any evidence.
Case law discussed:
2007 (1) ALL JIC 37, 2002 CBC 354.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.)

1. By means of this revision under
section 397 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (in short 'the Cr.P.C.'), dated
19.05.2004, passed by Spl. Judge (E.C.
Act), Jaunpur, in S.T. No. 462 of 1999