Allahabad Court March 2002 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.
Smt. Vibha Shukla and anr. Vs. Director of Education (Basic), Allahaba ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1221; [2002(93)FLR687]; (2002)3UPLBEC2530
S.K. Singh, J.1. By means or this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 1.1.2001, passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Kanpur Nagar and consequential order dated 10.1.2001, passed by the Manager of the College (Annexures-5A and 5B to the writ petition) to the effect that now the petitioners are not to continue in service.2. The petitioners claim to be appointed as Assistant Teacher in P.A.V. Balika Junior High School, Nirala Nagar. Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the College) in pursuance of the selection which took place on 7.11.1996. It has been claimed that after the approval having been accorded by the Basic ShikshaAdhikari by letter dated 14.11.1996, appointment letters were issued to the petitioners, pursuant to which they joined on their posts. The petitioners started getting their regular salary but thereafter, by order of Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 1.1.2001, payment of salary to the petitioners has been stopped on account of which ...
Dr. Y. Vimala Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1351; (2002)2UPLBEC1521
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the Selection proceedings for the post of Professor in the Department of Botany in the Meerut University, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 29.7.2000 (Annexure-2 to the petition).3. In the advertisement in question, this post has been stated to be reserved for O.B.C. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition, it is mentioned that there is only one post of Professor in the Department of Botany in the Meerut University and this fact is not disputed. Hence in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Post Graduate institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association, 1998 (2) AWC 1300 (SC); 1998 (4) SCC 1, we hold that the post in question cannot be reserved as it is a single post and has to be treated as a post for general category.4. The impugned advertisement dated 29.7.2000 is quashed so far as the post of Professo...
Satya Prakash and anr. Vs. Ist Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1368
R.R. Yadav, J. 1. The instant writ petition is directed against the order and judgment dated 29.8.2000, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, passed by 1st Additional District Judge. Etah, whereby the order and judgment dated 18.2.1999 passed by the learned trial court granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2. C.P.C. has been set aside and appeal filed under Order XLI1I. Rule 1 (r). C.P.C. was allowed.2. The factual matrix of the case necessary to be noticed for disposal of the present writ petition are that Suit No. 576 of 1998 was filed by the plaintiff-petitioners and one Smt. Har Pyari Devi (who died during the pendency of Misc. Appeal), against the contesting respondents in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kasganj, Etah. as the contesting respondent-defendant 1st set threatened to demolish the walls AD, DE and EF which is shown in red ink in the plaint, belonging to the petitioners and defendants IInd set and in their possess...
State of U.P. Vs. Ratan Kishore Johri and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1513
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the State of U. P.against an order passed by the delegatee of the District Magistrate and the appellate authority on an application filed by the landlord under Sub-section (8) of Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the revision of the rent.2. Section 21 (1) (a) and Section 21 (8) are reproduced below :'21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant.--(1) The prescribed authority may on an application of the landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof if it is satisfied that any of the following grounds exists, namely : (a) that the building is bona fide required either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his family, or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purposes or for purposes of any profession, trade or calling, or w...
Central Academy Society School Vs. Raj Kumar Ganjur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: AIR2003All194
ORDERI.M. Quddusi, J.1. These two revisions have been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 7-12-2001 passed by the Additional District Judge-II, Faizabad in S. C. C. Suit No. 3 of 2000, by which the application 13 (C-2) moved by the plaintiff, who is respondent in these revisions for striking off the defence of the revisionist under Order 15, Rule 5 has been allowed and the amendment application 17(A), which was moved by the defendant revisionist for amendment in the written statement, has been rejected. 2. The plaintiff respondent had filed a caveat on behalf of opposite party No. 1, therefore. Shri Vijay Bahadur Verma appeared for him. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist defendant, Shri Hari Prakash Srivastava and for the respondent-plaintiff. Shrf Vijay Bahadur Verma at quite length. 4. Since the order has been passed on the same date i.e. 7-12-2001 and one formal order has been prepared on these applications, therefore, these revisions are being d...
Bhaiya Lal and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3592
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26-2-1981 of Shri G.D. Chaturvedi, the then Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, in Sessions Trial No. 160 of 1980 convicting and sentencing all the appellants to imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C., and to 2 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/149 I.P.C. Appellants Bhaiya Lal, Raghuraj and Shyam Sunder have been sentenced further rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each under Section 148 I.P.C. while other appellants have been sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment each under Section 147 I.P.C.2. Undisputedly appellants, Bhaiya Lal, Beta Lal Prahlad, Raghuraj are real brothers being sons of Mehdi Kachhi. Appellant No. 5 Ram Manohar is son of appellant Raghuraj while Shyam Sundar is nephew of Raghuraj appellant.3. Prosecution case in brief is that in the evening of 17-2-1980 one buffalo of Raghuraj and one bullock of Beta Lal accused trespassed into the field of Jhandu P.W. 2 and started g...
Vinod Kumar Rai Vs. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1300; [2002(93)FLR890]; (2002)2UPLBEC1054
M. Katju, J. 1. This Writ Petition No. 7530 of 1998 and connected Writ Petition No. 39142 of 1999, Writ Petition No. 39556 of 1994 and Writ Petition No. 20185 of 1998 involve a common question and hence, are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The petitioner alleged that he is a physically handicapped person and he has prayed for benefit for reservation for physically handicapped persons in the P.C.S. (J) Examination, 1997. The petitioner has stated that he was born on 1.7.1965 and has done LL.B. It is alleged that he is fully qualified and eligible to appear in P.C.S. (J), 1997. In the advertisement copy of which Annexure-2 Inviting application for the P.C.S. (J), there is no provision for reservation for physically handicapped persons although it is alleged that there is such reservation for appointment in other State services. The petitioner applied in response to the advertisement. It is alleged that reservation in all public services exists in favour of physically handicappe...
P. Srinivasulu Vs. Dy. Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Allahaba ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1388
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajeev Sharma counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Rai appearing for the respondent Nos. 1. 2 and 3.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 16.10.2001 Annexure-8 to the writ petition passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Allahabad. U. P.3. By the impugned order dated 16.10.2001, an order of dismissal from service has been passed under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act. 1949 read with Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. The petitioner was appointed in the Central Reserve Police Force as Assistant Sub-Inspector (M). The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 27 of Central Reserve Police Force Rules. 1955, by memorandum dated 22.4.2000 Annexure-4 to the writ petition and consequent to the said disciplinary proceedings, the dismissal order has been passed. The counsel for the respondents has submi...
Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2152; [2002(93)FLR705]; (2002)2UPLBEC1372
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned sanding counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis as Lecturer in Agricultural (Chemistry) in Narayan Post Graduate College, Sikohabad and he has prayed that he should be allowed to continue in service. Petitioner's appointment letter dated 8.1.2002 is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The appointment letter itself states that the petitioner will continue in service till 30th June, 2002 or till the regularly selected candidate selected by the Commission joins the post, whichever is earlier. Hence according to the appointment letter itself, he cannot continue in service beyond 30.6.2002. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 11377 of 1999, Dr. Beena Kumar and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors., decided on 20.4.1999, copy of which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition. We ar...
Sushil Vidyarthi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)2UPLBEC1440
Jagdish Bhalla, J.1. Glories are the ways to come in limelight or to hit the headlines of news daily, may be in the field of Science, Art, Culture, Law or bravery but for all such achievement one has to play long innings. Here is a petitioner who wants to hit the columns of the news papers and come in limelight through shortcut by filing a writ petition before this Court without doing any preparation and sincere efforts though he is a journalist by profession.2. This Court has certain obligation towards the society while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution particularly with respect to Public Interest Litigation. The Courts have further shown their sense of responsibility by dealing with such matters so that the concept of the Public Interest Litigation shall not be diluted. Whenever a Public Interest Litigation is filed the responsibility is not of the petitioner alone, the same is equally shared by the member of the Bar who represents the petitioner and i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »