U.S. Uike Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

U.S. Uike vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Aug 30, 2012

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1052648

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1052648
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Aug 30, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

U.S. Uike

Advocate Shri. Pranay Verma

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

u.s.uike versus state & anr. w.p.no.13728/2012 30/08/2012 shri pranay verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. considering the fact that the petitioner has been transferred intermittently on more than two occasions during the last two years and now local member of legislative assembly has written a letter to the minister, public works department recommending for not transferring the petitioner, for the present without entering into the controversy on merit, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing certified copy of this order along with relevant documents, respondents shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of six weeks and till then, petitioner shall be permitted to work at his present place of posting. with the aforesaid, petition stands allowed and disposed of. certified copy as per rules. (rajendra menon) judge nd

Full Judgment

U.S.Uike versus State & anr.

W.P.No.13728/2012 30/08/2012 Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Considering the fact that the petitioner has been transferred intermittently on more than two occasions during the last two years and now local Member of Legislative Assembly has written a letter to the Minister, Public Works Department recommending for not transferring the petitioner, for the present without entering into the controversy on merit, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing certified copy of this order along with relevant documents, respondents shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of six weeks and till then, petitioner shall be permitted to work at his present place of posting.

With the aforesaid, petition stands allowed and disposed of.

Certified Copy as per rules.

(Rajendra Menon) Judge nd

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2012 Same Parties U.S. Uike vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education