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.
Pramod Kumar Ahirwar Vs. Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
W.P.No.16184/2012 (Pramod Kumar versus Board of Sec. Education & anr.) 01.10.2012 Shri J.A.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Harmeet Ruprah, learned counsel for the respondent/Board on advance copy. Though several issues have been raised in the petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent/Board be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation seeking correction of the mark sheet of Class-XII Examination issued in the year 2002. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Board submits that the prayer of the petitioner is subject to rules and regulations of the Board. Be that as it may, without entering into the merits of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner furnishes a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition before the respondent/Board within 15 days, the concerned authority shall consider and decide t...
B.K. Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
W.P.No.16232/12 (s) 1/10/12 Shri Ajay Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Considering the grievance of the petitioner to the effect that charge of Incharge Clerk and Store Keeper is not being granted to the petitioner by respondent No.4 inspite of directions issued by respondent No.3 vide order dated 14/08/12, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with relevant documents, respondent No.3 shall issue necessary instructions in this regard and respondent No.4 shall comply with the directions issued by respondent No.3 in the matter of grant of charge. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.C.C. as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Manager Tejas Ayurved Sansthan Vs. Presiding Officer Industrial Court, ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
1 MCC. No.1110/2012 MCC. NO.1110/2012 01.10.2012 Shri H.R.Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the applicant. By present application the applicant seeks extension of time for depositing the cost imposed vide order dated 20.03.09 passed in MCC No.86/09. MCC No.86/09 was arising out of MCC No.40/04 which was for recalling the order dated 03.12.03 passed in LPA No.181/03. The said Miscellaneous Case i.e.MCC. No.40/04 was dismissed on 07.05.08, for want of prosecution as the counsel did not appear. For restoration of said miscellaneous case the application was filed i.e.MCC. No.86/019, which was allowed on 20.03.09; whereby, MCC No.40/04 was restored subject to payment of cost of Rs.150/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee for legal aid to the poor within 7 days. Admittedly, the cost as imposed in MCC. No.86/09 was not deposited, consequent whereof, MCC. No.40/04 is not restored. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that, not deposit of cost of Rs.150/- was not delib...
Ashok Tripathi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
WRIT PETITION No.14846/20001. 10.2012 Shri R. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 5. Shri R.S.Yadav, learned Counsel for respondents No.6 and 7. This Court has specifically directed respondents No.1 to 5 to file the return in view of the fact that respondents No.6 and 7 have put the entire burden on the State authorities by filing return. Despite opportunity granted by this Court, the return has not been filed. Again a prayer for grant of time is made by learned Govt. Advocate. Considering the aforesaid, as last opportunity, four weeks' time is allowed to file the return to respondents No.1 to 5. It is made clear, in case return is not filed within the aforesaid period, personal appearance of the Director, Public Instructions and the Commissioner, Tribal Development, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, would be ordered. List immediately after four weeks. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc...
Chottelal Singh Baghel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
W.P.No.16425/2012 01.10.2012 Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 5 on advance copy. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 on caveat. The grievance of the petitioner is that without granting an opportunity of hearing to him, the order impugned has been issued repatriating the petitioner from the post of Block Resource Coordinator, Block Maihar and respondent No.6 has been posted in his place. This has been done allegedly in compliance of order dated 01.08.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.No.12137/2012 filed by the respondent No.6. It is contended that the rightful claim of the petitioner was not considered while issuing the order, whereas on earlier occasion the petitioner was selected and was appointed as B.R.C.C.It is contended that the order impugned is thus bad in law and is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 has pointed out...
Komal Prasad Chadar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
Komal Prasad Chadar versus State of MP and otheRs.01.10.2012. Shri Dinesh Upadhyaya, 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 Manpasar, District- Tikamgarh. By the impugned order dated 14-07-2012 passed by respondent No.3, petitioner has been transferred from Government Primary School, Manpasar to Government Primary School Mador. 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 sho...
Ramcharan Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
Ramcharan Ahirwar versus State of MP and otheRs.01.10.2012. Shri Dinesh Upadhyaya, 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 Majhgawan, District- Tikamgarh. By the impugned order dated 14-07-2012 passed by respondent No.3, petitioner has been transferred from Government Primary School, Majhgawan to Government Primary School Sedari. 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 sh...
Dr. R.K.Jaiswal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
Dr. R.K.Jaiswal versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.16565 / 2012 (s) 1.10.2012: Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State, on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in Artificial Insemination Centre, Waidhan, Tahsil, District Singrauli. By the impugned order dated 11.7.2012 he has been transferred to Veterinary Hospital Amarkantak, District Anooppur. Challenge to the order of transfer is made merely on the ground that there is no administrative necessity in transferring petitioner. Further pointing out certain personal inconveniences due to education of his children petitioner seeks interference into the matter. The grounds raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are No. such on the basis of which judicial review of an administrative order of transfer is not...
Sarvesh Chaturvedi and Other Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
R.P.No.760/2012 1/10/2012 Shri A.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the PetitioneRs.This application has been filed for review/ recall of an order passed on 24.8.2012 in MCC No.887/2012. It is pointed out by Shri A.K.Shukla that by the aforesaid order passed, W.P.No.6595/2011 (s) has been restored to its original file whereas, the actual case which was required to be restored is W.P.No.6595/2012. Indicating that a wrong case has been restored by the order passed on 24.8.2012 in MCC No.887/2012, this application has been filed. On a perusal of the original records of MCC No.887/2012 it is seen that in the said case prayer made was for restoration of W.P.No.6595/2011 (s).Therefore, an error has occurred due to the applicants himself mentioning the wrong case. Therefore, not until and unless MCC itself is not corrected, the prayer made in this application cannot be granted. Keeping in view the fact that a wrong case has been restored by the order passed in MCC No.887/2012, this application is ...
Smt. Mansa Verma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
Smt. Mansa Verma versus State of MP and otheRs.01.10.2012. Smt. Shimla Jain for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate, for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner was suspended on the allegations of certain irregularity committed by her in appearing in a Departmental Inquiry and producing documents. By filing overwhelming documents and explanation, petitioner has tried to indicate to this Court that the allegations levelled and the reasons given for her suspension are not correct. Petitioner is only suspended on the ground of certain allegations and for the present it is not appropriate for this Court to enter into the merits of those allegations, examine them in detail and exonerate the petitioner. This function is to be discharged by the disciplinary authority or the inquiry officer and not by a Writ Court. The suspension order can be interfered with only if statutory provisions are shown to be violated or grounds available for interfering with an order...
- ‹ Prev
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- Next ›
- Last »