Allahabad Court July 2001 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.
Bhoop NaraIn Tewari Vs. Uptron India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2480; (2002)1UPLBEC35
S.H.A. Raja, J.1. The U.P. Electronics Corporation Limited Is a Government undertaking, which is registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. M/s. Uptron India Limited is a subsidiary company of U.P. Electronics Corporation Limited.2. Late Sri Shakeel Ahmad Malik, the petitioner of Writ Petition Bearing No. 627 (SB) of 1996, who at the relevant time was holding the post of Executive Officer, Sri Sultan Haider, the petitioner of Writ Petition Bearing No. 758 (SB) of 1996, who was holding the post of Deputy Manager, CMD-1, and Sri Bhoop Narain Tewari, the petitioner of Writ Petition Bearing No. 921 (SB) of 1996, who was holding the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts), EF-VI in Uptron India Limited, have assailed the order of compulsory retirement dated 20.6.1996 by filing the aforementioned writ petitions.3. During the pendency of the writ petition. Sri Shakeel Ahmad Malik expired. His name was deleted from the array of the parties and in his place, the names of his widow Smt. Kishw...
Amir Alam Khan Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC266; (2001)2UPLBEC1715
S.H.A. Raza, J. 1. The question, which requires consideration in the present writ petition is as to whether the Chairperson of the U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf, U. P. (hereinafter called as the 'Board'), which is elected by the nominated and elected members of the Board, can function, only as long he enjoys the confidence of the members, who have elected him, or can be subjected to power of amotfon under the Common Law, in the absence of any statutory provision in the Waqf Act, 1995.2. Before replying to the aforesaid question, it would be relevant to deal with the factual matrix as set out in the writ petition.3. On 22.4.1999, Government of U. P. issued a notification constituting the 'Board'. The 'Board' consists of thirteen members, out of which seven members are elected from various constituencies and six are nominated. On 22.7.1999, Mr. Amir Alam Khan, the petitioner was elected as the Chairperson of the Board by the elected and nominated members of the Board. On 17.1.2000, t...
Chhedi Lal Maurya Vs. the Joint Director of Education and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: (2001)3UPLBEC1997
S. Harkauli, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and also perused the material on record.2. The petitioner was appointed to a class-IV post in 1988 and financial approval to his appointment was also granted by the office of the District Inspector of Schools Pratapgarh. By the impugned order dated 14.11.2000, approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled by the Joint Director of Education.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that Joint Director was not proper authority for this purpose that this matter should have been examined by the District Inspector of Schools.4. In the impugned order the ground for withdrawing the financial approval for the appointment of the petitioner is that father of the petitioner was the Manager of the College, therefore, the petitioner could not have been appointed.5. The petitioner claims that at the time of his appointment his father was not the Manager of the College. It ...
E.H. Khan and Another Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad B ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC2210; [2001(90)FLR554]; (2001)3UPLBEC2592
D.S. Sinha and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.1. Heard Sri Ateeq Ahmad Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Sri Lalji Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, at length and in detail.2. By the Impugned order dated 12th March. 1998, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, the respondent No. 1, upheld the validity of the examination conducted by the respondent No. 2 on 10th January, 1998 for the purpose of recruiting Assistant Accounts Officer (Group B) wherein the petitioners also appeared but could not succeed.3. Having failed to get through, the petitioners approached the respondent No. 1 and assailed the examination on two principal grounds, namely, (a) the examination was conducted beyond syllabus, and (b) the examination was biased.4. Relying upon paragraph 204.2 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol. 1, Revised Edition, 1989, and in the absence of any material to the contrary produced by the petitioners, the respo...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›