Madhya Pradesh Court October 2012 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.
Hari Om Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
Hari Om Patel versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.6042 3. 10.2012: Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sudesh Verma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent nos.1 to 3. Petitioner was a candidate who had appeared in the process of selection for appointment on the post of SubInspector. In the advertisement issued 10% posts were kept reserved for ex army personnel. Petitioner claims to be a retired army personnel having served in the Indian Army for more than 15 years. However, on the ground that petitioner does No. fulfill the educational qualification prescribed in column 1.8 of the advertisement Annexure P2 he has No. considered for appointment. The dispute involved in this writ petition is with regard to the graduation obtained by the petitioner from a institute run by Indian Army. The question has been considered by this Bench so also by Gwalior Benc...
Rama Shankar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
Writ Petition No.16260/2012 03/10/2012 Shri S.K.Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Stating that the petitioner is also similarly placed person that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioner is also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioner has prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the circu...
Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Vs. Manoj Kumar Pande
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-2012
W.P.No.12309.08 Writ Petition No.12309 of 2008 (Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Rewa versus Manot Kumar Pande and another) 03/10/2012 Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 15-07-2008 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal, whereby, FiRs.Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 06-12- 2007 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Headquarter Bhopal, reinstating the respondent in service was dismissed. The respondent was temporarily recruited by the appellant/Bank for collection of electricity bills in august, 1999. This was in furtherance to the arrangement entered into with Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board for collecting the electricity bills from consumers by the petitioner/ Bank. That later on Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board withdrew the bill collection work from the petitioner/Bank which resul...
Manik Chand Gupta Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
Manik Chand Gupta versus State of MP and otheRs.01.10.2012. Shri V.K.Shukla, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate, for the respondents/State, on advance notice. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Sohagpur, District- Shahdol. By the impugned order dated 13-07-2012 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, District-Shahdol, petitioner has been transferred from one Block to another in the same District. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that under the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009, there should be at least one teacher for every thirty five children. It is pointed out that if the petitioner is transferred the students-teacher ratio would be disturbed and the statutory provision of Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009 would be violated and, therefore, the transfer is illegal. The question as to how the students-teacher ratio should be ma...
Gopal Lal Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
W.P.No.16236/2012 01.10.2012 Shri V.D.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents on advance copy. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by writ petitions ...
Northern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. M.K. Goel
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
W.P.No.16693/2012 1/10/2012 Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Secretary of the Gram Panchayat and vide order Annexure P/1 dated 31.7.2012 his services have been terminated. Challenging the order of termination petitioner has filed this writ petition. Records indicate that vide order Annexure P/1 dated 31.7.2012 petitioner has only been suspended pending initiation of departmental proceedings against him and charge sheet to be issued and certain action proposed. Indicating the same to be illegal action, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Records indicate that finding the petitioner to have prima facie committed acts of misconduct in not making available the requisite record and acts of insubordination, based on preliminary enquiry action is taken. Petitioner is only suspended against which petitioner has right to appeal to the competent authority....
Shyam Narayan Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
Shyam Narayan Pandey versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.14735 / 2010 (s) 1.10.2012: Shri Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State. Petitioner's appointment on the post of untrained Forest Guard has been rejected only on the ground that petitioner is a candidate who has passed the qualifying examination from an Institute/Board situated in the State of U.P. and, therefore, is not eligible. The said question with regard to eligibility of a candidate who has passed the High School Examination from the Education Board U.P. and their entitlement to seek appointment has been considered and decided by this Court in various writ petitions decided on 11.9.2012 in W.P. No.14565/2010(s). W.P. No.14532/2010(s). W.P. No.14580/2010(s) and W.P. No.14585/2010(s) and after taking note of orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 4.1.2006 in W.P. ...
Gopal Das Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
W.P.No.16230/2012 01.10.2012 Shri S.P.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents, on advance copy. The petitioner claims grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by writ petitions ...
Madan Vs. Ravindra
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR, JABALPUR M.Cr.C. No.4626/2009 Madan and another Versus Ravindra and another *** Shri Manish Datt, Senior counsel with Shri Yogesh Soni, Advocate for the petitioneRs.None for the respondent No.1, though served. Shri Vinod Faujdar, GA for the State. *** O R D E R 01.10.2012 The petitioners have invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being aggrieved by order dated 27.4.2009 passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities)/Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Criminal Revision No. 245/2008 whereby the order dated 29.10.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chhindwara in Criminal Case No. 11/2008, was affirmed. Facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners are parents of deceased Nirmala. Her marriage was performed with respondent No.1 in the year 2000....
Sanjay Patel (Kurmi) Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
Sanjay Patel (Kurmi) versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.16471 1. 10.2012: Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3, on advance notice. Challenging appointment of respondent No.6 on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak and contending that 50 marks for having acquired qualification in Computer Operator and Programming Assistant is not granted to the petitioner, whereas it is granted to respondent No.6, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Challenge is also made to the select list issued by the Gram Panchayat for appointment of Gram Rozgar Sahayak. Shri S.S.Bisen submits that appointment to the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak is subject to appeal and revision Rules framed under Section 91 of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam and this Court have dismissed more than 100 cases on the ground that an efficacious alternate statutory remedy is available. Having heard learned counsel for the partie...
- ‹ Prev
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- Next ›
- Last »