Jharkhand Court April 2010 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.
Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-20-2010
D.N. Patel, J.1. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had applied for the post of a Constable in pursuance of a public advertisement and he had appeared in physical test and in all such other tests, taken by the respondents. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that, thereafter, the petitioner was selected on the post of Constable, but, later on the height of the petitioner was re-measured and the respondents are not giving appointment to the petitioner only on the ground that earlier the height of the petitioner was measured as 178.00 cms. and when it is re-measured at the time of appointment, it is 176.50 cms. The lastly selected candidate is having a height of 177.50 cms. The respondents are measuring height on both the times. The heights are measured by a very high ranking officer of the respondents and even on today, the petitioner's height can be re-measured by the respondents, which is 178.00 cms. In fact, once the h...
Jagnnath Ram and Saryoo Prasad Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand,
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-20-2010
D.N. Patel, J.1. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have suspended with effect from 26th August, 2009 and till today, departmental proceedings have not been completed and, therefore, let a suitable direction, either to revoke the suspension or to complete the departmental inquiry within stipulated time, be given to the respondents because enough time has been elapsed after the suspension from August 2009 onwards. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have not committed any misconduct worth the claim.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that now a counter affidavit has been filed and the departmental proceedings will be completed preferably and approximately within a period of one month, subject to the condition that the petitioner should cooperate the hearing before the inquiry officer.3. In view of the aforesaid submissions and looking to the facts and circumstances of the cas...
Jharkhand State Housing Board Vs. the State of Jharkhand Through Its C ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-20-2010
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner Jharkhand State Housing Board while claiming the ownership over the disputed lands on the ground that after the land was acquired by the Bihar State Housing Board, the same was transferred in favour of the Jharkhand State Housing Board after the creation of State of Jharkhand, have prayed for a direction to the respondent State authorities to give due protection to the petitioner Housing Board against the attempted encroachments of the disputed lands by the Respondent No. 5.3. From the counter affidavit of the Respondent No. 5 it appears that a definite stand has been taken by the Respondent No. 5 asserting that he is the grandson of the recorded Raiyat and the lands have been coming in his peaceful possession and occupation ever since the time of his ancestors and the lands have been mutated in the revenue records in his name and he has been continuously paying rent to the Government. The Respondent No. 5 has relied ...
Gour Chandra Gope Vs. Central Coalfields Limited and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-20-2010
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to grant him promotion to the Grade-III post, on the ground that he has been working on the post of Lamp Issuer for the past 20 years and does possess all the requisite qualifications for his promotion and yet while persons junior to him have been granted the promotions, he has been arbitrarily denied the benefit of such promotion.3. From the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties and on perusal of the relevant documents including Annexure-3 to the writ application which is a letter dated 19.10.1991 issued by the Senior Personnel Officer to the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner was acknowledged to be working on the post of Lamp Issuer. His claim for promotion to the higher post of Grade-III has been refused only on the ground that he had not submitted his educational qualification namely the Matriculation Certificate.4. Learned...
Sri Ram Ratan Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its Secretary, Mini ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-20-2010
D.N. Patel, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petition has been preferred mainly against an order, passed by respondent No. 2, who has not made reference to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1948 and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred. The reference is denied by a letter dated 29th September, 2008, at Annexure-3 to the memo of the petition. Against this order, this petition has been preferred.2. Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby, quash and set aside the order, passed by respondent No. 2 dated 29th September, 2008, at Annexure-3 to the memo of the petition, on the following facts and reasons:(i) The petitioner was working as a Miner Loader with respondent No. 1 since, 1980, as per the allegations levelled by the present petitioner.(ii) It appears that the petitioner was working with the respond...
Chandawa Devi @ Chandawa Mahar and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Apr-20-2010
D.N. Patel, J.1. The present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the Circle Officer, Jarmundi, Distt: Dumka has pasted a notice of eviction upon the premises, owned by the present petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that exparte decision, has been taken by the Circle Officer, Jarmundi which is arbitrary, capricious and whimsical approach and, therefore, he has challenged the decision of the Circle Officer, Jarmundi.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to go before the appropriate officer and will prefer an appeal against the order, passed by the Circle Officer, Jarmundi. The said appeal will be preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka and till then stay, granted by this Court vide order dated 3rd April, 2008 to the effect that the petitioners should not be dispossessed from the property, in question, may be continued till that appeal is preferred and disposed of, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›