Chhattisgarh Court December 2015 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.
Shree Deo Diwedi Vs. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through i ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-15-2015
1. Stellar issue that has cropped up for consideration is whether Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1955 and the proviso appended thereto with regard to making reservation for persons with disability, is mandatory in nature. 2. The petitioner is a doctor holding degree of B.A.M.S. and a differently abled person. He applied to be considered for the post of Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari on an advertisement issued on 28-5-2008 against nine posts of unreserved physically handicapped category. He was allowed to appear in the written examination and also he was allowed to appear in the interview, but when the final result was announced, his name did not figure in the final select list and later-on he was informed that on account of his hearing impairment, he was found ineligible for the post of Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari and, therefore, he is not entitled to be considered for the said post. 3. Feeling aggrieved and ...
St. Xavier s H.S. School Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Chief ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-11-2015
Cav Order 1. Critical question that arises for consideration is whether teacher of fully aided educational institution can be held to be employee within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1972 ) to enable the teacher to claim gratuity ? 2. Petitioner-school is a minority institution and receiving 100% grant-in-aid from the State Government. Respondent No.5 herein was superannuated on 30.6.2003 from the petitioner s school as Assistant Teacher. He made an application under Section 4 read with Section 7 of the Act of 1972 and Rule 10 of the said Act stating inter-alia that he is entitled for gratuity from petitioner s school as definition of employee under Section 2(e) of the Act of 1972 has been amended with effect from 3.4.1997 bringing the teacher within the definition of Section 2(e) of the Act of 1972, therefore, he is entitled for amount of gratuity. The Controlling Authority by order dated 23.3.2013 allowed that ...
Rajendra Prasad Kushwaha Vs. The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Through R ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
Cav Order 1. Epochal question that falls for consideration is whether an Advocate who has put in seven years practice and thereafter, appointed as Assistant District Prosecution Officer, who is a full-time salaried employee of the State Government and governed by the statutory rules of the State, is eligible for appointment on the post of District Judge (Entry Level) under Article 233 (2) of the Constitution of India. 2. The High Court of Chhattisgarh respondent No.1 issued advertisement inviting applications for recruitment on the post of District Judge (Entry Level) by holding District Judge (Entry Level) Direct Recruitment Examination, 2013, laying down the eligibility criteria that a candidate is held to be eligible if he has been for at least seven years in continuous practice as an Advocate on the first day of January, 2013 in accordance with Article 233 (2) of the Constitution of India and Rule 7 (i) (c) of the Chhattisgarh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of ...
Ashish Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
Cav Order 1. Seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto directing 5th respondent Sanjay Kumar Patil to show cause under what authority he continues to hold the Office of Vice Chancellor, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Raipur, Ashish Kumar Sharma the petitioner herein, has filed this writ petition. 2. Factual matrix of the case requisite to resolve the controversy is as follows: - 3. The Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1987 (for short 'the IGKVV Adhiniyam, 1987') has been enacted by the State Legislature to establish and incorporate Agricultural University for Krishi Tatha Sambandh Vigyan at Raipur to provide for education and prosecution of research in Agriculture and Allied Sciences, extension and other matters ancillary thereto. IGKVV known as Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, an Agricultural University, constituted by virtue of Section 3 (1) of the IGKVV Adhiniyam, 1987 is a body corporate having perpetual succession and common seal and shall sue and be...
ISS SDB Security Services Pvt. Ltd., and Others Vs. Assistant Labour C ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-09-2015
Order On Board 1. Preeminent issue that cropped up for consideration in this batch of writ petitions is whether Labour Officer appointed under the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act of 1960') has power and jurisdiction to adjudicate the substantive right of employee in exercise of power conferred under Section 30 (6) (b) of the Act of 1960 and direct his reinstatement. 2. Since this batch of writ petitions involve common question of law and fact, they are being tagged together and heard simultaneously and decided by this common order. However, facts of W.P.(L)No.94/2013 are taken as lead case for the purpose of deciding the dispute. 3. The petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is involved in the business of private security agency to the industries and has entered into agreement with Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (BALCO) to provide security guards and officers at various levels to safeguard the interest of...
Reshamlal Pradhan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary and Ano ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-08-2015
1. Distinguished issue that has cropped up for consideration is whether this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can draw equivalence of two educational qualifications and declare equivalence, that too after initiation of recruitment process. 2. The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (for short 'the PSC') issued an advertisement on 15-7-2015 inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment on the post of Assistant Professor in different branches viz., Civil, Electrical, Electronics and Telecommunication, Information Technology, Mechanical and Mining, in Engineering Colleges, laying down the requisite educational qualification for the said posts to be Graduate in relevant branch and Post- Graduate degree i.e. M.E./M.Tech. in first class. The petitioner claiming to be eligible candidate as having Graduate degree in Information Technology and having M.Tech. in Computer Science made an attempt to submit application on-line in which he ...
Virodhan Ram and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Additi ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-01-2015
1. Principal question that falls for consideration is whether the respondent SECL is having the jurisdiction to enquire into the caste of the petitioners by issuance of charge-sheet by instituting departmental enquiry. 2. The lands of Virodhan Ram, petitioner in W.P.(S) No.5491/2011, and Jeetu Ram, petitioner in W.P.(S) No.5938/2011, were subjected to acquisition by the competent authority under the provisions of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, and against the said acquisition, compensation was paid and in accordance with the rehabilitation policy, the petitioners were also granted appointment in the Category of General Mazdoor Category-1 by orders dated 28-5-1997 and 6-5-1997 and since then the petitioners were allowed to work in South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL). After 14 years of their service in the SECL, on 25-8-2011, the respondent SECL issued charge-sheet to the petitioners holding that they are not tribes and they have purchased the subject...
Dr. Ram Sharan Lal Tripathi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Dec-01-2015
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been listed for hearing on office objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. An objection has been raised by the Registry that the writ petition filed against the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, should have been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and not under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh on 17.7.2015 allowing the review application filed by the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the writ petition having been preferred against an order passed by the authority exercising power of judicial review but not being a civil Court, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has rightly been filed. He would further submit that it is the right of the petitioner to elect or choose a remedy against the order of subordinate Court or Tribunal i.e....
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›