Pintu Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Pintu Kumar vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Sep 27, 2012

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1054081

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/1054081
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Sep 27, 2012
Subject: Banking

Case Summary

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

Banking

Key legal issue: Banking

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pintu Kumar

Advocate Shri. K.K. Kushwaha

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

pintu kumar versus state of m.p.& ors.writ petition no. 15799 / 2012 27.9.2012: shri k.k. kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner. shri rajesh tiwari, learned government advocate, for the respondents/state. matter pertains to appointment of gram rojgar sahayak and pointing out irregularity in the selection with regard to awarding of marks to the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. it has been consistently held by this court in various cases that appointment of gram rojgar sahayak are subject to statutory appeal and revision rules and the rules framed under section 95 of the m.p. panchayat raj adhiniyam and, therefore, a writ petition directly before this court without taking recours. of statutory remedy available is not permissible. accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recours. of statutory remedy available the petition is disposed of. certified copy as per rules. (rajendra menon) judge ss/

Full Judgment

Pintu Kumar versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No. 15799 / 2012 27.9.2012: Shri K.K. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents/State.

Matter pertains to appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak and pointing out irregularity in the selection with regard to awarding of marks to the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed.

It has been consistently held by this Court in various cases that appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak are subject to statutory appeal and revision rules and the rules framed under section 95 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and, therefore, a writ petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs. of statutory remedy available is not permissible.

Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs. of statutory remedy available the petition is disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2012 Same Parties Pintu Kumar vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Banking