Allahabad Court December 1996 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
S.A.A. Zaidi Vs. Aligarh Muslim University Through Its Registrar and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1996
Reported in: (1997)1UPLBEC228
M. Katju and B.S. Chauhan, JJ.1. Heard Dr. R. G. Padia learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dilip Gupta learned counsel for the respondent.2. On the facts of the case, we direct that the enquiry against the petitioner be completed within three months from the date of product on of certified copy of this order before the concerned authority The petitioner will, co-operate in enquiry. The enquiry officer will submit his report within two weeks thereafter to the disciplinary authority who will pass on order there an within two weeks thereafter.3. Dr. R. G. Padia learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to contend that the suspension order is illegal. It is not necessary for us to consider this contention since the charge sheet has been served on the petitioner and the enquiry is in progress. It is settled law that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and even if the impugned order is illegal we are not bound to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularl...
Mohd. Kafeel and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1996
Reported in: (1997)3UPLBEC1577
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dt. July 31,1996 passed by Director, Land Acquisition, Board of Revenue, U. P., Lucknow transferring Land Acquisition Amins from one District to another District on administrative ground and in public interest The petitioner No. 1 Mohd. Kafeel who was working in the office of Additional Land Acquisition Officer, Lucknow has been transferred to the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Varanasi while petitioner No. 2 Muneer who was working in the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sultanpur has been transferred to the office of Additional Land Acquisition Office, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow.2. Learned counsel has assailed the transfer order on the ground that the appointing authority for the Land Acquisition Amins is the Collector of the District and as such there is a district cadre for such class of employees and consequently they cannot be transferred out of the Distt. in which they were appointed. It ...
Santosh Singh Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1996
Reported in: (1997)1UPLBEC82
M. Katju and B.S. Chauhan, JJ.1. The petitioner's application for appearing in the examination of U. P. Public Service Commission was rejected by the Commission on 1-11-1996 on the ground that he did not fill in his date of birth. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly submitted that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity of hearing before passing the order. We do not agree with this contention at all. It is not a quasi-judicial order which has been passed by the respondent. Also, rules of natural justice, are not a start jacket formula. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the commission had acted arbitrarily. We do not agree with this contention also. It is rather the petitioner who had acted arbitrarily and carelessly in not filling the form properly. It was his duty to have properly filled in the form and he has only himself to blame if he did not do so. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mistake was bona fide. That may be so, ...
Maiku and anr. Vs. District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societie ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1996
Reported in: (1997)1UPLBEC507
D.K. Seth, J.1. Mr. A. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, challenges the order dated 30th June, 1987 terminating the petitioners1 service being Annexure '2' to the writ petition, on the ground that the said order was passed after attaching stigma to the petitioners without holding any enquiry. Therefore, the said order should be set aside.2. Mr. S. K. Roy holding, the brief of Mr. Triloki Nath counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, took a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that the Society with which the petitioners claim to have been engaged is a Co-operetive Society and not a State within the meaning of Article 72 of the Constitution of India. His second ground of attack to the maintainebility of the writ petition is that the service or the petitioners was not governed by any statutory rules and, therefore, while terminating the service the order that was passed by the Society is not a function in discharge of public duty ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›