SHAHEEN BANO Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by judgement and order dated 21.04.2009 passed by a learned Judge in Civil Misc. WRIT Petition No. 21351 of 2009 dismissing the writ petition, has preferred this appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. WRIT petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant'), was engaged as Aanganbari Karyakatri on her claim that she was the resident of village Lohra. Later on, a complaint was made that she was not the resident of that village and the certificate of residence produced by her was forged. The appellant was given various opportunities to place her claim that she was the resident of village Lohra but she did not produce any evidence and on consideration of the material on record, it was found that she was not the resident of village Lohra. Accordingly, by order dated 30.01.2009 passed by the Child Development Planning Officer, Muratganj, Kaushami, her engagement as Aanganbari Karyakatri was rescinded. Mr. J.L. Patel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the finding recorded by the authority that she is not the resident of village Lohra is erroneous and hence the order rescinding her engagement as Aanganbari Karyakatri is illegal. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Patel. The appellant in support of her claim had produced a resident certificate bearing number 3682 dated 28.02.2007 which, on verification, was found to be in the name of Parveen Kumar. It is well settled that this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review does not appraise the evidence and interferes with the findings of fact only when it is shown that the same is perverse, meaning thereby the finding has been recorded without consideration of relevant material on record and no person duly instructed in law would come to that conclusion. We are of the opinion that the finding recorded by the authority that the appellant was not the resident of village Lohra, which has been affirmed by the learned Judge, does not call for any interference in this appeal. We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.