Allahabad Court June 2000 Judgments
Rakesh Kumar Panwar and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-26-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2309; (2000)3UPLBEC2121
R.R.K. Trivedi, J. 1. In this bunch of special appeals, judgment dated 8.9.1997 passed by the learned single Judge has been questioned by which Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19071 of 1995 and four other writ petitions were finally disposed of. Petitioners in the aforesaid five writ petitions are Junior Engineers serving in Allahabad Development Authority on ad hoc basis for several years. They claimed regularisation of their services as Junior Engineers and payment of regular salary, learned single Judge by the impugned order dated 8.9.1997 disposed of the writ petitions by the following order :'In the aforesaid view of the matter, the nature of exercise in regard to the selection in making ad hoc appointments on regular basis for filling up the substantive vacancies in the posts of Junior Engineers which has been undertaken by the respondent Development Authority cannot be sustained in law. In the result, the questions framed in the earlier part of this judgment are decided accordingl...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary, Board of Basic Education, Allahabad and Others Vs. Rajendra ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-26-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2553; (2000)3UPLBEC2101
R.R.K. Trivedi, J.1. In this bunch of cases, the question fordetermination by the Court is as to whether the candidates possessing certificates of physical training could be considered for appointment as assistant teachers in basic schools run by the Basic Education Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) or recognised by the Board under the provisions of Basic Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. In order to properly appreciate the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to mention the facts in brief in which the special appeal and the writ petitions have arisen. The submissions have been made in Special Appeal No. 1050 of 1998. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21459 of 1997 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29274 of 1997. The facts are accordingly mentioned from the aforesaid special appeal and the writ petitions.Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21459 of 1997.Petitioners of this petition claimed that they passed intermediate examination conducted by U. P. Hig...
Tag this Judgment!Gaurav Kaushik (In Jail) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2870
Palok Basu, J.1. The petition of Gaurav was admitted by a Division Bench of this Court on 25-4-2000 whereas the petition filed by Dharmendra Rastogi alias Chhotu was entertained by a Division Bench of this Court on 23-5-2000, when the time for exchange of the affidavits was granted and it was directed that the petition should come up even during the summer vacations becaause the detention order was likely to expire on 28-6-2000. In both the matters the detention orders have been passed under National Sectionrity Act [hereinafter referred to as the Act] on 29-6-1999 by the Chief development officer, Meerut, purporting to act as District Magistrate, Meerut, within the meaning of the Act. Since the grounds are common and challenge is extended to the detention order primarily because the District Magistrate has not passed the said orders, the matters have been heard together.2. Sri Arvind Vashishth, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Sri Shekhar Yadav has been heard at substant...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Sanjai Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2260; (2000)3UPLBEC2249
A.K. Yog, J.1. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27220 of 2000, the petitioner was given an assignment (and not appointment in strict legal sense) on a fixed honorarium. i.e., on an absolutely stop-gap day-to-day arrangement on fixed amount (since no regular appointment could be made without following due process of law prescribed under U. P. Higher Education Services Commission which was bound to consume some time and thereby affecting education in the concerned institutions) videGovernment Order dated 7.4.1998 (Annexurc-1 to the writ petition).2. The Government Order dated 7th April, 1998 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) categorically mentions that : subject to possessing minimum qualification prescribed by University Grant Commission, a candidate is allowed to teach by giving Rs. 100 per lecture subject to a maximum of Rs. 5.000 per month provided he gives a declaration/undertaking on oath on stamp paper--subject to the condition that capability of an available candidate is assessed...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Hit Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2415
A. K. Yog, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certtorari to quash the letter dated 26.5.2000 issued by Additional Commissioner, State Election Commission, U.P. respondent No. 5 (Annexure-III to the writ petition) to the extent it required all the District Magistrates, District Panchayat Raj Officers and Senior Superintendent of Police, Superintendent of Police to take action for getting licenced arms to be surrendered and deposited with the concerned authority and for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to compel the petitioner, holder of a valid licenced firearms to deposit his arm on the basis of sweeping observation that Panchayat Raj elections were going to be held in near future.2. Petitioner has filed copy of a news report allegedly containing a statement of District Magistrate concerned disclosing that licenced arms of all the persons in the district shall be required to be deposited necessarily and in...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kamalawati Vs. Kotwal, Rasra, Ballia and Other
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-12-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2100
A.K. Yog, J.1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondents.2. Petitioner claiming to be the Pradhan of the village filed a suit and certain interim order was obtained. Thereafter an application was filed before the civil court complaining breach of the Interim order. These orders are ex parte.3. Copy of the order-sheet has not been annexed to satisfy this Court that all efforts were taken to serve defendants in the said suit.4. Considering the controversy raised by the petitioner, I treat this petition to be public interest litigation. The grievance of the petitioner concerns the entire society at large particularly the rural population Inasmuch as running of brick kiln, without ensuring protection to the environment, ecology and grove, is a social menace.5. I regret that this petition has been filed casually. Petitioner has not even cared to produce Government Order/s dealing with the subject. The reliefs sought. If allowed, are bo...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-12-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2367
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This special appeal js directed against the judgment and order dated 3.3.2000 of learned single Judge by which Writ Petition No. 20771 of 1999 in which the appellant was one of the petitioners was dismissed.2. The Dy. Inspector General of Police (Karmik], U. P. Police Headquarters, Allahabad (In short, the D.I.G.) issued an advertisement on 4,10.1991 inviting applications for making selection for 525 posts of Sub-Inspector of Police (both men and women) through direct recruitment. In the advertisement, the upper age-limit for the candidates was mentioned as 30 years and those born between 1,7.1961 and 1.7.1971 were eligible for making applications. The selection process initiated by the aforesaid advertisement was cancelled by the order dated 9.6.1994. and another advertisement was issued on 24.6.1994 for filling up 67S posts of sub-Inspectors of police. In this advertisement also, the upper age-limit was mentioned as 30 years. The appellant claims to have made an ap...
Tag this Judgment!N.N. Srivastava Vs. Vice-chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-12-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2381; (2000)3UPLBEC2079
A. K. Yog, J.1. The petitioner has filed representation dated 19.4.2000 addressed to the Vice-Chancellor, Bundelkhand University. Jhansi, contending that he is going to retire on 13.6.2000 at the age of superannuation, i.e., 60 years (ascontemplated under existing statutes of the University).2. It appears that the petitioner is working as a teacher in the department of Physics in Atarra Degree College. Atarra, an affiliated College of Bundelkhand University. Admittedly, age of superannuation at -present under law is 60 years.3. The petitioner being prompted by a Division Bench Judgment of this Court making observation only to the State Government for accepting University Grants Commission recommendation for enhancing age of superannuation has filed this petition.4. The whole thrust of the petitioner is based on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Prof. Chandra Prakash Jha and others v. Vice-Chancellor. Allahabad University and others, (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1134.5. In the aforementio...
Tag this Judgment!Hakim Syed Mohammad Ahmad Qadiri Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-12-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2536
A.K. Yog, J.1. Petitioner wants writ of mandamus commanding respondents (authorities in the administration in the district of Saharanpur) to permit the petitioner and the Muslim community of Saharanpur City to hold the procession on the date of birth of Prophet Mohammad Sahib and to direct the respondents not to interfere In the right of the petitioner and Muslim community of Saharanpur to hold procession on the day of date of birth of Prophet Mohammad Sahib and further make suitable arrangement to facilitate the petitioner and Muslim community in holding procession on the day of date of birth of Prophet Mohammad Sahib in city Saharanpur.2. At the very outset, it may be stated that no such writ can be issued and the present petition is wholly misconceived. Administrative Authorities are In full command of thesituation. An application to ensurethat the performance of religiousrights [subject to condition that Itdoes not Infringe the rights of othercitizens of other community in thecity)...
Tag this Judgment!R.C. Singh Vs. Union of India to Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-09-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)AWC2383; (2000)3UPLBEC2078
A. K. Yog, J.1. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this is a public interest litigation for seeking direction restraining the N.T.P.C. and its employees from going on hunger strike and from taking mass casual leave. It is a democratic country and it is a well-known mode of redressal of grievances. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the members of the Bar who frequently resorted to the strike and create similar situation, have no legal justification for restraining the respondents from, doing the same. Curiously, petitioner one is a practicing advocate. How can he champion their cause--neither legally nor morally, he is a fit person.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has. however, placed reliance on the case of Chairman,Railway Board and others v. Chandrama Das and others, 2000 (2) SCC 465. I have gone through this case and found that there is no hard and fast principle laid down which may be applied in the instant case. Learned counse...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »