Jharkhand Court March 2008 Judgments
Saryoo Prasad Roy Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-28-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR585(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondent No. 3 to proceed and to dispose of the Land Ceiling Case No. 3/07-08 filed by the petitioner under Section 16(3){ii) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation to Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') expeditiously. He has farther prayed for quashing the order dated 20.11.2007 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur in exercise of purported power under Session 144, Cr PC.2. The case of the petitioner is that he had filed the said land ceiling case before the DCLR, Dalbhum, East Singhbhum on the ground that he is the adjoining raiyat of the lands of Plot Nos. 147, 148 and 149 under khata No. 458 and Plot No. 143 under khata No. 456 of Mouza-Pardih, P.S.-Mango, Jamshedpur (East Singhbhum) and the said lands were transferred in favour of the respondent Nos. 10-12, who is neither a co-sharer not an adjoin...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjeev Kumar Kushwaha and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-28-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR600(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction on the respondents to appoint the petitioners on suitable vacant posts.2. It has been stated that by Memo No. PR 356 (Labour-01) 02-03 dated 24th April, 2002, notice was published, inviting applications for preparation of panel for making appointment in various Class-IV posts in the District of Hazaribagh. The petitioners, being found themselves eligible, had applied for appointment on the said post; admit cards were issued to them; they appeared in the examination and were finally selected.3. A panel of 450 successful candidates was prepared and the petitioners' names were also included in the said panel. Out of the said panel, names of the successful candidates were sent to different departments for appointment. Names of the petitioners were sent for appointment to Indira Gandhi-Residential Girls School, Hazaribagh (hereinafter to be referred as the 'School').4. The petitioners were dir...
Tag this Judgment!State of Jharkhand and ors. Vs. Bimal Kumar Sinha
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-28-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR577(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Order dated 2.5.2003 passed by the learned single Judge in WP (S) No. 6440 of 2002 has been challenged in this appeal filed on behalf of the appellant-State.2. In our view, the order passed by the learned single Judge is not correct in view of the fact that earlier appointment of the respondent was made under the Scheme, which was abolished and the respondent was re-appointed on the condition that his past services will not be taken into account, since the post on which he worked was not a substantive post and therefore the respondents is not entitled to pensionary benefits as per Rule 58 of the Bihar Pension Rules.3. As correctly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants, this point was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Dhyan Singh v. State of Haryana reported in : (2002)10SCC656 'wherein the Apex Court held as follows:The continuance/engagement of the appellants under a specific scheme cannot be held to be an employment under any establishment of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhairav Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-28-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR204(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Memo No. 275/Aa dated 31.7.2006 (An-nexure-1) passed by the Licensing Authority-cum-Sub-divisional Officer, Dhanbad whereby the petitioner's license for Public Distribution Shop has been put under suspension with immediate effect. It has been stated that the petitioner was given license to run the P.D.S. shop in the year 1991. He had been running his said shop without any complain to the satisfaction of all concerned. Suddenly by order dated 31.7.2006, the petitioner's license, along with others, was put under suspension. A show-cause notice was issued asking the petitioner and others to explain as to why their licenses be not cancelled. The petitioner submitted his reply immediately thereafter. But till date no order has been passed revoking the suspension of the petitioner's license. The petitioner made several requests and representations, but till date no order has been passed.2. A counter-affid...
Tag this Judgment!Priyatosh Choudhary @ Pritosh Choudhary and ors. Vs. Mukta Choudhary a ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-28-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR44(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the Impugned order dated 5.7.2007, passed In Partition Suit No. 193 of 2006, whereby, the learned Court below has refused to grant injunction, prayed by the plaintiffs-appellants in a suit for partition.There is no dispute that the suit property is a joint family property and both the plaintiffs and defendants are the co-sharers.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has also not disputed the fact that the suit property is a joint family property. However, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the persons in whose favour transfer has been made by the respondents during pendency of the suit have not been made party in the partition suit.3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents is misconceived. At the very outset, the defendants-respondents ought not to have sold the property during pendency of the partition suit. Even if such transfer is made, that will be subject...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bihar Vs. SerajuddIn Ansari
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-27-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR494(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is made against the order dated 9.8.2001 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 643 of 2000, whereby the writ application was allowed.This writ application was filed by the respondent No. 1/petitioner praying for quashing the order dated 29.12.1999 issued under the signature of Additional Secretary, Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna communicating the decision of the Government declaring the period from 13.11.1981 to 27.10.1986 as unauthorized absence of the respondent No. 1/petitioner from the duty and rejecting the application filed by the respondent No. 1/petitioner for grant of extraordinary leave for the aforesaid period.2. Facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondent No. 1/petitioner, was appointed as Assistant Professor in Electrical Engineering Department, Government of Bihar on regular basis on the recommendation made by Bihar Public Service Commission through the notification dated 19...
Tag this Judgment!Nathu Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-27-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR602(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to renew and return the Wholesale Kerosene Oil Licence No. 1/Bagh/ 89 (SKO). Petitioner has further prayed for a direction on the respondents to delete the name of any third person, if inserted in the licence, which is not permissible in view of the provisions of Clause-9 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Unification Order).2. According to the petitioner, the licence for Whole Kerosene Oil was granted to M/s. Chhitar Mal Nathu Mal & Sons, which was a proprietorship firm. The petitioner has applied for renewal of the said licence before the Licensing Authority on 24th April, 2007, but the Licensing Authority has not returned the licence to the petitioner after renewal.3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4 as also learned JC to GP III appearing on behalf of the State-respondents contes...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Meena Devi and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-27-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR552(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties finally.2. Though, petitioners claimed compensation and employment against acquisition of land but Mr. Shivnath, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that petitioners are only claiming compensation as per Section 48(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for use of their land by Bharat Cooking Coal Limited (BCCL).3. Mr. Mahjul Prasad, appearing for the State, and Mr. A.K. Mehta, appearing for the BCCL submitted that though acquisition proceeding was started but possession of the lands of the petitioners was not taken and they were not used. The acquisition proceeding was dropped on the request of BCCL. They further submitted that petitioner's claim is not only frivolous but stale also having been raised after about 10 years.4. Thus, the question is whether possession of the petitioner's lands were taken and they were used or not. In paragraph 8, the petitioners have made a vague and general statement with regard to possessio...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Surendra Singh Vs. Governing Body of Rajendra Institute of Medical ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-27-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR629(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Mr. Anwar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted as follows. The petitioner should be considered for appointment on the post of Associate Professor in Pathology in Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS for short) in other backward class (OBC category). Though the advertisement for filing up four such posts, was not clear about the reserved category, but as the reservation rules are applicable to RIMS, one post was of OBC category. Further 10 marks were wrongly reduced for absenting in two MBBS final examination as 'being' absent is different from 'failure' in. examination. However, the constitution of selection committee was not challenged.2. Mr. R. Krishna, appearing for the respondents, submitted as follows. According to the selection criteria, 10 marks were allocated only for regularly passed students but five marks were deducted for each failure or of non-appearance in the regular examination and as the petitioner failed to ap...
Tag this Judgment!Dhaneshwar Manjhi and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-27-2008
Reported in: [2008(3)JCR119(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a direction on the respondents to postpone/adjourn/stay, the date of interview/examination for appointments on the posts of Lecturers of the five tribal languages including Santhali, Mundari, Ho, Kharia and Khurukh. When the writ petition is taken up today, learned Counsel submitted that examination/interview has already been held pursuant to the Advertisement No. 1/07 dated 30.1.2007 published in the daily newspaper 'Hindustan' in its edition dated 30.1.2007.2. At this stage of the case when the examination, interview etc. have already held, the petitioners have come with a prayer for amendment in the prayer portion of the writ petition seeking direction on the respondents not to appoint any Lecturer during the pendency of the writ petition.3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the reservation policy has not been followed in the appointment and the entire process is vitiated on that count.4. Learned cou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »