ARUNA BHARTI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 5.3.2013 passed by opposite party no.2, whereby promotion to the post of Associate Professor has been denied to the petitioner on the ground of pendency of a criminal case.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioner was selected and appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department of Anesthesiology, SGPGIMS, Lucknow and since the date of appointment of the petitioner, she has been discharging her duties and functioning on the aforesaid post with utmost sincerity. On 26.10.2009, when the petitioner came back to her residence, she found that one Km. Renu, who was working as a maid servant, was missing from the house. She waited for some time and thereafter she started searching her. The petitioner ultimately informed in writing about the missing of Km. Renu in the outpost of SGPGIMS, Lucknow on 26.10.2009 at 6:30 p.m. The petitioner, later on, came to know that when the petitioner was not in her residence, one of her neighbour doctor informed the Ministry of Child Labour that the petitioner meted violent behaviour to Km. Renu and he also called certain media persons as well as members of Child Helpline. Behind the back of the petitioner, media persons and members of Child Help Line met Km. Renu and at the instance of aforementioned media persons and members of Child Helpline, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner on 27.10.2009 alleging therein that the petitioner dashed head of Km. Renu against the wall and as a result thereof, Km. Renu sustained injuries and the said news was also published in various daily news papers. Km. Renu was thereafter sent for medical examination for determining her age and after medical examination, age of Km. Renu was determined to be 15 years on 30.10.2009. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.10508 (MB) of 2009, challenging the FIR, which was disposed of by this Court on 11.11.2009 with the direction that in case the petitioner being a lady and doctor, moves bail application, the same shall be decided by both the courts below expeditiously.

(3.) THE petitioner moved an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stating therein that offence under Section 307 of IPC, Section 4/16/17/18 of Pratibandhit Shram Unmulan Adhiniyam and Section 3/14 of Bal Shram Pratishedh Viniyaman Adhiniyam, is not made out against her and as such she may be discharged under the aforesaid sections.