Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. In the instant writ appeal and the writ petitions, question involved is about the absorption of District Adult Education Officers (hereinafter referred to as "DAEOs") as Assistant Directors vide Order dated 9.4.1999. Further question involved is whether they are entitled to be promoted to the post of Deputy Director in view of the rules called M.P. Education Service (School Branch) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 1982").2. Writ petition was filed by the appellant in writ appeal no.353/2007 in which prayer was made to quash decision dated 9.4.99 to absorb DAEOs and to assign them seniority as Assistant Director, Education, final gradation list had also been assailed. Further prayer was made to direct the respondents to convene the DPC for promotion to the post of Assistant Director and Deputy Director and to consider their names and the other eligible candidates ignoring DAEOs absorbed as Assistant Directors. Prayer was also made to tre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. In W.P. No. 7352/2007, prayer has been made for quashing order (P-4) dated 11.4.2007 passed by Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. Prayer has also been made to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner institution to practice and impart education in alternative system of Electro Homeopathy System of Medicine in accordance with law. Prayer has also been made to issue mandamus directing respondents State to formulate the rules and regulation as well as guidelines by bringing regulatory legislation for Electro-Homeopathy System as per direction of Delhi High Court passed in W.P. No. 4015 of 1996.2. In W.P. No. 2242/2007 prayer has been made to quash order dated 22.1.2007 and communications dated 6.2.2007 and 3.2.2007 issued by the respondents. Further prayer has been made to permit the petitioner institution/College established at Baihar, Balaghat to function and direct the respondents to grant registration to the petitioner institution.3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1- Challenging the orders Annexure P/1 and P/2, by which promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner Excise is granted to respondent No.3, superseding the petitioner and the order seeking suo motu review of a departmental proceeding closed against the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed.2- Petitioner was initially appointed as a District Excise Officer on 1.9.1999. He claims to be a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community. In the year 2005, while petitioner was posted as District Excise Officer, Mandsaur a show-cause notice was issued to him on 5.11.2008, pointing out various irregularities in the matter of recovery of revenue. Petitioner is alleged to have filed reply denying the allegations. However, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 3.3.2006, to which the petitioner submitted his reply and pointed out his defence. Being satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority exonerated the petitioner of all the charges an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. The petitioner, who is a Patwari of Revenue Circle Bahoriband, Patwari Halka No.23/38 of Village Udaipur, by way of the instant petition has assailed the legal validity of order dated 10.7.2006 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sihora by which the petitioner's services as Patwari have been terminated and order dated 16.10.2007 passed by the Collector dismissing his appeal. 2. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a second appeal before the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division which is pending adjudication but as the very initiation of proceedings and the order of termination of the petitioner is without jurisdiction and authority of law, as held by this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Khare vs. State of M.P. And Others, reported in ILR (2008) M.P. 1436 and the judgment in the case of Phulloo Ram Kol vs. State of M.P. And Others, W.P No.8777/2003 decided on 25.9.2008, the petitioner has filed the present petition during the pendency of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. Heard on admission. Challenge put-forth in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 29.10.2009/11.11.2009 (Annexure P-4) whereby the petitioner has been issued with a charge-sheet, whereby the petitioner has been charged of financial embezzlement of Rs.3,84,700/- and of an act unbecoming of a government servant, violating Rule 3 (1) (i), (ii), (iii) and Rule 3 (2) (ii) of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter shall be referred to as Conduct Rules of 1965). Facts giving rise to initiation of a departmental enquiry was with first information report lodged on 12.6.2008 by one Chandrabhan Kulhade, Court Superintendent of District Consumer Forum, Seoni. The report was initially lodged against one Rajkumar Rai, Farrash at District Consumer Forum, Seoni alleging that a sum of Rs.3,84,700/- has been drawn from the Bank by putting forged signature. On the basis of said report a crime was registered for offences under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. Petitioner, which is a forum of retired IAS, IPS officers and other eminent citizens of State of Madhya Pradesh, through this public interest litigation has challenged the validity of section 23-A of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, as amended by Amendment Act, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), as well as notifications dated 14.3.2008 and 05.9.2007, Annexures-P-1 and P-2 respectively, issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 23-A of the Act. By the impugned notifications the land use of various sites in the city of Bhopal has been changed from public/semi public purpose to commercial in order to facilitate the construction of Five Star Hotel, a Commercial Complex and an Oceanarium on lands measuring 10.19 acres over Khasra Nos.1431 and 1432 which situate adjacent to Minto Hall and for the construction of Central Business District on land measuring 15 acres in and around South T.T. Nagar Market surrounding area, which is pu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. The reference has been made by learned Single Judge vide order dated 26.3.2010. Following question has been referred for consideration :"Whether the view of the learned Single Bench of this Court in the matter of Mohan @ Munna Pachauri (Supra) that the period spent for obtaining certified copy of ex-parte decree cannot be excluded for calculating the limitation under Article 123 of the Limitation Act is the correct view or the earlier contrary view of the Single Bench of this Court in the matter of Shakuntala Singh (supra) is correct ?2. The petitioner has filed an eviction suit against respondents/defendants. In the said Civil Suit, summons were duly served upon the defendants. Defendants appeared before the Trial Court, written statement was also filed. As the rent was not deposited, an application under Section 13(6) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 was filed. The Trial Court ultimately ordered striking-off the defence of defendants/tenants. Thereafter, defendants were pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. Petitioner by way of present petition seeks direction to respondents to finalize the case of pension and pay the arrears of pension w.e.f. 1996 to 2000 and thereafter. The husband of the petitioner was in employment of M.P. Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter shall be referred to as Corporation) and retired from the service w.e.f. 31.12.1996 on attaining the age of superannuation.2. The case of the petitioner is that, the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Schemes framed thereunder is applicable to the Corporation. It is contended that, as per scheme the contributory fund from the share of petitioner's husband was deducted and was deposited with respondent No. 1. It is urged, after death of her husband, petitioner approached the authorities of respondent No. 2, the Corporation, for grant of family pension by submitting an application on 14.4.2004 and despite of repeated efforts made by the petitioner, the respondents did not ext...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. Shri D.K.Tripathi, counsel for petitioner. Shri Harish Agnihotri, G.A., for respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri Vivek Mourya, counsel for respondent no.4. The petitioner has sought following reliefs in this petition :- "[1] To call for entire relevant record.[1(a)] To declare the Section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sansthan (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk KaNirdharan) Adhiniyam 2007, Act no.21 of 2007" is unconstitutional.[2] To declare the Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Private Medical and Dental Under Graduate Entrance Examination Rules, 2009 is unconstitutional.[3] To direct the respondents to permit the petitioner as open + freedom fighter category in the counseling and the same allot a seat of M.B.B.S., in any private medical college.[4] To pass such any other order as deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.[5] Any other relief together cost of the petition which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case may ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1- As the question involved in both these petitions are common and challenge is made to an order-dated 29.8.08, passed by the Commissioner Sagar Division, pertaining to appointment of Panchayat Karmi to Gram Panchayat Kishanpura under Janpad Panchayat Shahgarh in Tehsil Banda, District Sagar, both these petitions are being disposed of by this common order.2- Facts that have come on record, on a perusal of the original records produced by Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the State, indicates that in pursuance to the policy of the State Government dated 19.7.2007, available in the record of W.P.No.10886/2008 as Annexure P/3, the Collector concerned issued instructions to the Gram Panchayat for appointment of a Panchayat Karmi. Accordingly, an advertisement was issued and on the basis of the same three persons applied. They were Shri Munnalal Lodhi - respondent No.7 in W.P.No.10886/08 and petitioner in W.P.No.12755/08; Smt. Pratibha Yadav petitioner in W.P.No.10886/08 and responden...
Tag this Judgment!