SHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. P. Sahi, J. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

(2.) THE petitioner has prayed for a mandamus to cancel the appointment of the respondent No. 5, and the appointment is being impeached by the petitioner on the ground that his selection was invalid being contrary to the terms of the Government order dated 1-7-2000 Annexure 1 to the writ petition. THE ground for challenge is that the Gram Pradhan at the time of the selection was the real uncle of the petitioner. He was the Sabhapati (Chairman) of the Gram Shiksa Samiti which made the selection.

(3.) THE Apex Court in the case of Sangeeta Singh v. Union of India, JT 2005 (7) SC 545, has, while considering such a situation in the matter of allotment of petroleum products dealership, clearly ruled that Courts can either add, delete or modify such definitions, and overruled the decision of this Court.