.....on record to say that the gram panchayat has acted in a deliberate or malafide manner, they have understood the circular and policy as per their view and has taken a decision to give preference to a woman candidate belonging to the reserved category. that being the position it is not appropriate for this court to take action against the gram panchayat. in case petitioner has any grievance with regard to the manner in which the resolution is passed, he may challenge the consequential orders passed in accordance to law before the appropriate forum, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for initiating action for contempt is made out. accordingly finding no case for initiating action for contempt this application is dismissed. (rajendra menon) judge mrs.mishra
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....w.p.no.20166/12, w.p.no.20141/12, w.p.no.20326/12, w.p.no.20324/12 and w.p.no.20440/12 have also been dismissed by this court. in view of the aforesaid decision of the division bench of this court, with which i am respectfully bound, i find no reason to entertain the present petition which is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take up all issues before the competent forum as and when occasion arises. it is also observed that ultimately, in case, the respondent authorities of the board find any deliberate or inappropriate action on the part of some authority, they may take action against them in accordance with law. with the aforesaid liberty/observations, the petition filed by the petitioners stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (r.s.jha) judge gn
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTwrit petition no.7128/2012 raghvendra prasad sharma versus state of mp and others.17.12.2012. shri p.k.saxena for the petitioner. shri b.p.pandey, panel lawyer, for the state. in view of the review filed by respondent no.6 before the commissioner, rewa division, petitioner is also granted liberty to raise objections in the matter before the commissioner where the review is pending and it would be for the commissioner to take a decision in the matter, while considering the review filed by respondent no.6. for the present, in view of the above, no further indulgence into the matter is called for. accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. certified copy as per rules. (rajendra menon) judge aks/-
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTwrit petition no.19042/2012 laxman ram versus j n k v v, jabalpur 17.12.2012. shri lalit joglekar for the petitioner. shri praveen dubey for the respondent. claim of the petitioner for payment of pension has not been finalized and it seems that due to non-vacation of quarter by the petitioner the claim was kept pending. however, a representation of the petitioner in this regard is pending before the registrar of the university and, therefore, the registrar of the university is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner and settle his claim for grant of pensionary benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. all the dues shall be paid to the petitioner within the aforesaid period and a report submitted to this court. while deciding the claim of the petitioner, representations – annexures p/5 and p/5-a dated 19.7.2012 and 31.7.2012, shall be taken note of and the decision taken on the basis of the same. accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. certified copy as per rules. (rajendra menon) judge aks/-
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....necessary action be taken. it is indicated by filing order-sheets that without giving the applicant complete copies of the documents, the matter has been heard and decided and, therefore, contempt is committed. matter is pending since 2008 and till date none is appearing for the applicant or the non-applicant. now, after a period of four years the position would have changed. therefore, after a period of four weeks, i see no reason to proceed in the matter. the application is, therefore, disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge and pursue the action taken against the final order passed under section 19. accordingly, petition stands disposed of. certified copy as per rules. (rajendra menon) judge aks/-
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the initial date of promotion on the post of principal degree college and principal post graduate college, petitioner has filed this writ petition. facts in brief indicate that the petitioner was initially appointed as a lecturer of zoology w.e.f.8.10.1966 and, thereafter, directly recruited on the basis of the selection conducted w.e.f.22.12.1996, he was retired from service and at the time of retirement, petitioner was principal degree college. a dispute arose with regard to determining the seniority of persons directly appointed to various posts like assistant professors.professors and lecturers under the m.p.educational service (collegiate branch) recruitment rules, 1990 and the persons, who were given promotion under the time bound promotion scheme. the dispute was as to whether, a directly recruited person shall rank senior to an incumbent granted promotion under the time bound promotion scheme. the matter came to this court in w.p.no.11324/2003 (dr. nisha tiwari & ors versus state of m.p.and ors.) and a division bench of this court on 7.9.2005 resolved the matter vide annexure-p1 and in it’s order held that a directly recruited professor shall always rank senior in the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTwrit petition no :20983. 2012 mani ram yadav versus state of madhya pradesh and others 17.12.2012. shri amit kumar bajpai for the petitioner. shri rajesh tiwari, government advocate, for the respondents, on advance notice. petitioner claims regularization in service on the ground that he has been appointed as a daily wage employee and is working since 12.12.1986. regularization is claimed on the basis of the circulars issued by the state government on 16.5.2007 and 6.9.2008 and the law laid down by the supreme court, in the case of secretary, state of karnataka and others versus umadevi (3) and others.(2006) 4 scc 1.for considering the claim of employees for regularization. respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in accordance to the scheme formulated as per the directives issued by the supreme court, in the case of umadevi (supra) and decide the claim of the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid. certified copy as per rules. (rajendra menon) judge vy/-
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....in case, he belongs to the general category and 30% marks for each section/paper in case he belongs to the reserved category. inspite of the fact that the statutory rule prescribed the minimum qualifying marks to be obtained, state government issued a circular on 26.9.2008 prescribing certain qualifying marks i.e.50% marks for each section/paper for general category and 40% marks for each section/paper in case he belongs to the reserved category. this circular dated 26.9.2008 has been quashed by a division bench of this court in w.p.no.6268/2009 and various other cases as is evident from order dated 24.8.2009 and subsequently in w.p.no.362/2010(s) on 11.1.2010. in view of the aforesaid orders passed, petitioner's case is not required to be considered on the basis of stipulation as contained in rule 6(5) of the original rules of 2005 and action taken in the light of the order passed by a division bench and the subsequent order passed by the learned single bench of this court on 11.1.2010 in w.p.no.362/2010(s).respondents are directed to consider the case of the present petitioner also in accordance with rules 6(5) of the rules 2005 and take a decision with regard to.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....under order xli rule 27 cpc and the case has been remanded back to learned trial court to re-decide the suit.2. no exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal since they have been stated in para 3 and 4 of the impugned judgment. suffice it to say that a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of certain immovable property, the description whereof has been mentioned in the plaint and which is the subject matter of the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs on the ground of title as well as possession. according to the plaintiffs they are the owner of the suit property and defendant is illegally interfering in their possession and is also challenging their title. the defendant (appellant herein) filed written-statement and denied the plaint averments including the title of the plaintiffs.3. learned trial court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit. the plaintiffs preferred first appeal before learned first appellate court and also filed an application under order xli rule 27 cpc. learned first appellate court after hearing the first appeal on merits and.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTm.c.c.no.1280 of 2012. 17.12.2012. shri abhay upadhyay for the applicant. this application is filed for restoration of w.a.no.523/12 which was dismissed because of non-compliance of peremptory order dt.18.6.12 in w.a.no.523/12. this application is also barred by limitation so the applicant has filed an application - i.a.no.12276/12 u/s 5 of the limitation act. considering the reasons stated in the application supported by an affidavit of shri achal shrivastava, advocate, we find it appropriate to condone the delay in filing this application. accordingly, the delay in filing this application is condoned. heard on m.c.c.no.1280/12. considering the reasons stated in the application supported by an affidavit of shri achal shrivastava, advocate, we allow this application with the following conditions :1. applicant to make the defaults good in w.a.no.523/12 within a period of 3 weeks from today. 2- in case the defaults are made good within the aforesaid period, office to restore the appeal and place it before the appropriate bench. in case of default, the earlier order shall stand. no order as to costs. (krishn kumar lahoti) (smt.vimla jain) judge judge khan*
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT