Allahabad Court August 2009 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.
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Brij Mohan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC145
Poonam Srivastav, J.1. Heard Sri S.K. Mishra, counsel for the tenants/petitioners and Sri M.K. Gupta, counsel for the landlord/respondents.2. The writ petition is listed for admission but as already agreed between the counsels for respective parties, it is being heard finally under the High Court Rules.3. The judgment and order impugned in the instant writ petition is dated 27.8.2008, passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Muzaffar Nagar in S.C.C. Revision No. 32 of 2007, Union of India and Anr. v. Brij Mohan and Ors. arising out of judgment and order dated 10.8.2007, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Muzaffar Nagar in S.C.C. Suit No. 28 of 1999. Both the orders are annexed as Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition.4. Facts giving rise to the dispute are that petitioners' department runes post office from the tenanted accommodation situated in Kasba Budhana, district Muzaffar Nagar. An agreement was executed for a period of five years tenancy at the rate of Rs. 300 per...
Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. and ors. and Chief Engineer, Jhansi Zo ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC214(NULL)
1. These two special appeals arise, though against separate judgments dated 09.09.2005 and 12.01.2009 respectively, out of common questions of law and fact pertaining to the same process of selection on the post of Junior Clerk in the Public Works Department, against an advertisement dated 10.08.1998 published by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Jhansi Region, Jhansi, where the respondent-petitioner Anoop Kumar Rathore (hereinafter referred to as the ''petitioner') claimed appointment on the basis of the said selection.2. The dispute raised by the petitioner is that knowledge of Hindi typewriting was only a preferential qualification, and not essential, as per the advertisement itself, and therefore, the appellants - employer could not have disqualified the candidature of the petitioner on that count. The stand of the appellants in response is that the word preference in the advertisement was a mistake, and that the Rules provide for knowledge of Hindi typewriting as an ess...
Committee of Management, Sunahari Lal Bal Mukund Inter College and anr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3523
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Sri Amit Saxena, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Mohit Kumar, the learned Counsel for the applicant who seeks to be impleaded in the writ petition and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.2. The last election was held on 16th of September, 2004, which was duly recognised by the Regional Committee, by its order dated 31st December, 2004. As per the scheme of administration, the term of the Committee of Management is 3 years and one month, during which period, fresh elections are required to be held.3. It transpires that on 15th of July, 2004, a resolution was passed by the Committee of Management to hold elections, pursuant to which an election programme was notified informing the relevant authorities, including the District Inspector of Schools, about the election. It is alleged that the election programme was also published and letters were sent to the District Magistrate, the S.S.P. and the educational authorities to send their obs...
Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Vs. Smt. Dhoopa Devi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC4071
C.K. Prasad, C.J. and A.P. Sahi, J.1. Respondent No. 1-appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 12.5.2009 passed by a learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30 of 1996, has preferred this appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.2. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 was engaged as Maharajin/Sevika in Bal Niketan Balika Junior High School, Jajmau Colony, Kanpur Nagar. The appointment was made in pursuance of a resolution of the Committee of Management of the said institution. While appointing respondent No. 1, it was resolved to seek approval of the Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar. The approval was granted by the Basic Education Officer in May, 1994. Thereafter, by order dated 22nd November, 1995, the Basic Education Officer cancelled the appointment inter alia on the ground that earlier approval for appointment was taken on misrepresentation of facts and her appointment was absolute...
Dr. Smt. Anupam Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3967
ORDERAmitava Lala and Shishir Kumar, JJ.1. Petitioner's grievance is that the post of Reader in Political Science as notified in the advertisement dated 11th July, 2009 published in daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagaran' cannot be said to be reserved category post being the single cadre post but the same was opposed by the respondents saying that the posts of Lecturer, Reader and Professor can be clubbed together and form a 'cadre' for such purpose, hence, any of such posts within such cadre can be reserved.2. Today we have heard the parties and gone through several judgments. We find that initially in State of U.P. v. Dr. Dina Nath Shukla : (1997) 9 SCC 662 : 1997 (2) AWC 689 (SC), it was held that when such posts form a cadre subjectwise then rule of reservation will be applicable but thereafter in State of U.P. and Ors. v. M. C. Chattopadhyaya and Ors. (2004) 12 SCC 333, three Judges' Bench of Supreme Court has held that the conclusions of Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Dina Nath Shukla...
State of U.P. Vs. Har Govind Singh Shakya and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC144
ORDERC.K. Prasad, C.J. and A.P. Sahi, J.1. This intra court appeal, at the instance of the State of U.P., arises out of an order dated 3.7.1997, passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21513 of 1994.2. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the State Government by order dated 5.7.1985 granted sanction for teaching certain new subjects, including Biology, for Sri Rasal Singh Higher Secondary School, Mahaoi, Nauli, in the district of Farrukhabad. Pursuant to the aforesaid sanction, writ petitioner-respondent was appointed on ad hoc basis under Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982. The papers relating to the appointment were forwarded for approval before the appropriate authority. However, before any reply could be received, the Committee of Management of the School by order dated 5.4.1994 dispensed with his service. Aggrieved by the same, writ petitioner preferred the writ petition inter al...
Shivdhar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3522
ORDERVineet Saran, J.1. The petitioner was a fair price shop licensee. By order dated 25.7.2007, the fair price shop licence of the petitioner was placed under suspension. Reply to the charges was given by the petitioner. Thereafter, by order dated 4.10.2007, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Licensing Authority), the licence of the petitioner was cancelled. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, which has been dismissed on 24.10.2008 by the Deputy Commissioner (Food), Varanasi Division, Varanasi. Aggrieved by the said order dated 4.10.2007, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and order dated 24.10.2008, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food), Varanasi Division, Varanasi, this writ petition has been filed.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and have perused the record. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged and th...
Radhey Shyam Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC3765; (2010)ILLJ480All
D.P. Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.2. This petition is directed against an order dated 16.12.2008 by which the respondents have refused to pay gratuity to the petitioner.3. The petitioner was initially appointed as an English Stenographer in the civil court at Azamgarh in November, 1977 and subsequently was promoted as English Stenographer Grade-I on regular basis and continued to function as Personal Assistant to the Additional District Judge. An F.I.R. under Section 307, I.P.C. was lodged against the petitioner which was registered as Case Crime No. 1060 of 2003 and since he was detained in custody on a criminal charge for a period exceeding 48 hours, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 26.8.2003. However, no departmental proceedings were initiated against him and he retired from service on 30.6.2004 on attaining the age of superannuation. When his retiral dues including gratuity was not paid he preferred Writ Petiti...
Suresh Chandra Sharma (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Iiird Additional District Judge ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)AWC4067
S.U. Khan, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties on several dates.2. This writ petition after hearing both the parties was allowed on 6.12.2006. Thereafter this review petition has been filed on 28.6.2008 alongwith delay condonation application. Review petition has been filed by legal representatives of Mohd. Farooq, who was respondent No. 3 in the writ petition (the only contesting respondent).3. The ground of delay is that against my judgment dated 6.12.2006, original respondent No. 3, Mohd. Farooq had filed S.L.P. (Civil) No. 3173 of 2007 before the Supreme Court on 12.2.2007, however in the S.L.P., original petitioner Sri Suresh Chandra Sharma, who had died on 10.7.1999, was made a respondent. Thereafter, substitution application/ impleadment application was filed, however it was dismissed and S.L.P. was also dismissed on 7.2.2008 by the Supreme Court. Thereafter, review petition was filed before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed on 8.5.2008. It is also stated ...
Anwar and ors. Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)AWC148
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This is plaintiffs' writ petition who have filed Original Suit No. 222 of 1985 against contesting respondents for partition and for mandatory injunction. Petitioners have claimed that their share in the property in dispute is 1/4th. Some of the defendants filed written statement admitting some of the facts mentioned in the plaint. Thereafter those defendants filed application seeking amendment in the written statement. Trial court/Munsif, Mohamdabad district Ghazipur through order dated 11.2.1988 allowed the amendment application. Against the said order plaintiffs-petitioners filed Civil Revision No. 49 of 1988 which was dismissed by District Judge, Ghazipur on 29.3.1988 hence this writ petition.2. The only ground taken in the amendment application was typing errors in the original written statement and that some essential facts had been omitted which required to be mentioned.3. In para 1 of the written statement part of para 1 of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »