Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(1)ESC354
sunil ambwani, j.1. heard sri ashok khare, senior advocate, sri kripa shanker, sri shailendra, sri prakash padia, sri v.k. singh, sri anoop barnwal, shri a.s. rai and sri o.p. shukla, learned counsels for petitioners and sri s.m.a. kazmi, chief standing counsel, assisted by sri k.s. kushwaha, standing counsel for the state respondents.2. this second batch of writ petitions have been filed by unsuccessful applicants to the special basic training certificate 2004 (in short special b.t.c. 2004). the petitioners have challenged the select list declared on 27.5.2004 and have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to send them for training for appointment as assistant teachers in basic schools run by u.p. basic education board.3. the u.p. basic education act, 1972, provides for establishment of board of basic education to organise, co-ordinate and control basic education in u.p. to establish and control schools for basic education and teachers training, to raise standards and co-relate it with primary education in the state. all the basic schools in the state up to viiith standard, except those which are being run by private institutions are under direct supervision and control of the u.p. basic education board.4. there is acute shortage of teachers in basic schools run by the board. the central and state governments have accepted the responsibility to provide free and compulsory education to all the children up to age of 14 years, to fulfil the objectives under .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1999)3UPLBEC2119
d.k. seth, j.1. in all these cases common questions of law and facts being involved, by consent of parties it was agreed that those may be taken up together. with permission of the court, counsel for the respondents mr. v. k. singh has filed a counter affidavit in writ petition no. 3591 of 1999 which has to be treated as counter affidavit to all the other writ petitions. there is no dispute with regard to the facts made out in the writ petition, mr. v. m. zaidi, learned counsel addressed the court on behalf of the petitioners in writ petition nos. 8566 of 1999, 8911 of 1999, 18395 of 1999 and 18775 of 1999. mr. rakesh kumar shukla counsel for the petitioner addressed the court on behalf of the petitioners in writ petition nos. 5726 of 1999, 8564 of 1999, 8566 of 1999 and 14372 of 1999. mr. i. r. singh learned counsel for the petitioner addressed the court on behalf of the petitioner in writ petition no. 3591 of 1999 mr. v. k. singh, learned counsel represented the respondents in all these cases and had addressed the court. the matter was taken up for hearing on successive dates and the hearing was concluded on 14th july, 1999 and the matter has been placed for orders today.2. the main question that requires determination by the court is as to whether the order of reversion passed by the respondents in respect of each of these petitions on respective dates are legal and valid and can be sustained. the facts of each case are almost identical. it is contended by each of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(3)ESC1869
sabhajeet yadav, j.1. brief facts leading to the case are that the petitioner was recruited as constable on 22.3.1983 in central reserve police force. while he was undergoing counter insergency anti terrorists course at awadi (1 madras) after completing the aforesaid requisite training on the last day when the petitioner was appearing in swinging jump (jhoola jump), the rope was broken and the petitioner met with an accident and suffered fracture at knee and also at back bone in the year 1994. on account of aforesaid serious injuries sustained by the petitioner he was admitted at crpf base hospital on 25,4.1994 for his treatment. the petitioner remained under treatment in ,crpf base hospital upto 8.8.1994. by the order dated 26.4.1994 he was referred to all india institute of medical science, new delhi and on 27.4.1994 his treatment at all india institute of medical science was started and the petitioner was admitted for his operation on 19.8.1994 and was discharged on 27.8.1994. in all india institute of medical science on 23.8.1994 the petitioner's knee (acl tier) re-constructed. it appears that under the treatment provided to the petitioner he could not recoup properly, therefore, again on 28.8.1994 the petitioner was admitted to crpf base hospital at new delhi and remained under treatment as in-door patient upto 24.11.1994. on account of aforesaid serious injuries sustained by the petitioner and also having regard to the prolonged treatment provided to the petitioner the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2006)201CTR(All)520; [2006]283ITR532(All)
1. heard shri ravi kant, senior advocate, assisted by shri r.s. agrawal, advocate for the petitioners and shri bharat ji agrawal, senior advocate along with shri ashok kumar, advocate for the respondents.2. the above writ petitions are decided finally as all the respondents are represented by the standing counsel representing the department. initially the respondents did not file counter-affidavit, on the understanding that these writ petitions are to be decided on the basis of three documents, i.e., notice dt. 26th oct., 2005/annex. 2, reply of the assesses/annex. 3 dt. 27th oct., 2005 and the impugned order of transfer dt. 16th dec., 2005/annex. 4 to the writ petition, the authenticity of which was not disputed before the court.3. petitioners have approached this court through aforementioned writ petitions under article 226 of the constitution of india and seek to challenge transfer of their case by a common order dt. 16th dec., 2005 passed by cit-i, kanpur in exercise of powers, vested under section 127(2), it act, 1961 (called the 'act') from kanpur to ao at. new delhi (annex, 4 to the leading writ petition).4. for convenience we refer to the facts leading writ petn. no. 55 of 2006 r.k. agarwal v. cit and ors. according to the petitioner, he is engaged in the business of sale of printing-paper and board. he is, besides smt. rekha agrawal (wife of his brother) and shri, mayank agrawal (brother of the petitioner) partner in the firm m/s malay enterprises.5. in paras 4 and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2001)1UPLBEC757
yatindra singh, j.1. no decision is approved for reporting (afr) unless it decides an important question of law. however, this decision does not decide any question of law, much less an important question of law, it is merely an interim order. then, why have i marked it afr? let me clarify, i have marked it afr to emphasise :(i) court management, and(ii) good administration.2. edison.-yet to find suitable filament for incandescent bulb-was asked by his friends if he hadn't failed in his many attempts. 'no; he answered. 'i have found out what will not make good filament'. well, the controversy involved in these cases and the course charted by it in this court tells us about court management and good administration-how these two may not be practised.the facts3. the petitioners in these writ petitions were adhoc, or muster roll, or temporary, or work charge, or daily wage employees, of the rajya krishi utpadan mandi parishad, lucknow (the parishad) or the krishi utpadan mandi samiti of different areas (the samitees). there is some difference in these five kinds of appointments. but nothing turns upon their distinction in these cases. for convenience, 1 will be using one word namely 'ad-hoc' for all of them. the petitioners were appointed after 1.4.1996 without following the rules and regulations. these appointments were irregular. there were other employees similarly situate that is other ad-hoc employees whose appointments were also irregular. the state government divided them .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(2)AWC937; (1998)1UPLBEC294
d.p. mohapatra, c.j.1. the bottom-line question that quintessentially falls for determination by this bench is whether a candidate, seeking direct appointment on the dint of being 'ex-serviceman' to a post in group 'a' and/or group 'b' service of the state government, is required to fulfil the condition of 'at least five-years' military service' as a prerequisite to consideration of his candidature as against the posts reserved for 'ex-service men'? an ancillary question, which arises for consideration in this connection, is whether the prescription of five years' military service vide g.o. dated 28.2.1985 as a condition precedent to claim relaxation in upper age limit prescribed for directappointment to group 'a' and/or group 'b' services of the state government is equally essential condition for consideration of the candidature of an ex-serviceman against the quota reserved for 'ex-servicemen' and other defence personnel.2. the question arose in hari shanker upadhyay v. public service commission, u. p. allahabad and another. civil misc. writ petition no. 22029 of 1989, in which learned single judge, reinforced by a division bench decision of this court in hari shankar tripathi v. state of u. p. and others, civil misc. writ petition no. 1090 of 1990, decided on 7.5.1990, held vide judgment dated 21.5.1991, that in a run-up to appointment against the posts reserved for 'ex-servicemen' at least five years' service in army is imperative. in that case, petitioner hari shanker .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2007(1)AWC573
shishir kumar, j.1. the present writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 13.11.2003 passed by director general of police u.p. lucknow (annexure 1 to the writ petition) further issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 13.4.2001 and 4.8.2001 passed by director general of police u.p. lucknow to the extent by which the petitioner has been promoted to the post of head constable in armed police.2. the facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as constable in the civil police in the year 1993. although the petitioner was inducted in the civil police, the deputy inspector general of police, allahabad range, allahabad, in exercise of power under regulation 525 of the police regulation transferred the entire batch from civil police to armed police. it is relevant to state here that the aforesaid order was not a permanent order but the same was passed to resolve shortfall in armed police. the state government constitute a special task force in district allahabad in the year 1998 and the services of the petitioner were inducted in special task force. the special task force was created for the purposes of ejecting crime from district allahabad and further to forcefully and effectively combat organized crime being conducted by various groups and individuals in the district allahabad. as the petitioner shows exemplary courage, honesty and integrity towards their duties the petitioner .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
devi prasad singh, j. 1. with the change of government, the creation of new districts has become a routine feature in the state of uttar pradesh that too, without adverting to financial viability and necessity. ordinarily, decisions are political to perpetuate legacy of political parties. 2. similar is the case in hand referred by the division bench of this court relating to constitution of chhatrapati shahu ji maharaj nagar (in short csm nagar). 3. on account of conflicting judgment with regard to right of state government to create districts, a division bench of this court (hon'ble pradeep kant, j. and hon'ble ritu raj awasthi, j.), has framed three (3) questions and referred the same to the larger bench. in terms thereof, hon'ble the chief justice has constituted the present bench. the questions referred by the division bench vide order dated 25.3.2011 passed in writ petition no.10159 (m/b) of 2010 and three other connected writ petitions, are as under: (i) whether the issuance of notification under section 11 of the u.p. land revenue act read with section 21 of the u.p. general clauses act by the governor is legislative act or administrative act. (ii) alternatively, if the exercise of statutory power under section 11 is held to be legislative act, then whether the impugned notification can be held to be violative of the directives issued by the central government under rule 8(iv) of the census rules, 1990, in view of article 246(1) of the constitution and, therefore, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All716
s.b. chandiramani, j. 1. it appears that on the 10th april, 1934, debi singh, one of the appellants, executed a deed described as a deed of conditional sale in favour of one atbal singh (predecessor of some of the respondents) in respect of a one-third share of mahal chaudhri harpal singh in village bangarmau, district unnao. debi singh applied under section 4 of the encumbered estates act showing the property covered thereby as his own. he claimed that the transaction evidenced by the sale-deed of 1934 was in fact a mortgage by conditional sale. atbal singh objected saying that it was an out and out sale subject to a condition of repurchase within a specified time. the special judge held that section 58(c) of the transfer of property act when correctly construed does not indicate that every deed of sale containing a condition for repurchase operated only as a deed of mortgage and the true test still is the intention of the parties which may be gathered from the language of the deed and the surrounding circumstances at the time of execution. on the facts and circumstances of the case he held that the transaction was an out and out sale with the condition of repurchase and not a mortgage by conditional sale. in the circumstances the property in dispute was held to be the property of atbal singh and not of the landlord applicant debi singh.2. debi singh has filed an appeal in this court contending that the transaction is really a mortgage by conditional sale and he relied on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1997)1UPLBEC594
b.m. lal, b. kumar and m. katju, jj.1. for the reasons recorded separately this court unanimously holds that the impugned presidential proclamation dated 17-10-1996 reimposing presidential rule under article 356 of the constitution of india in the state of utter pradesh subsequently approved by the parliament is unconstitutional, issued in colourable excercise of powers and is based on wholly irrelevant and extraneous grounds and therefore, cannot be allowed to stand, consequently the same is hereby quashed.2. however, to avoid any constitutional dead-lock or crisis resultant to the quashing of aforesaid proclamation, we direct, by applying the doctrine of prospective overruling, that this judgment shall come into operation with effect from 26-12-1996.b.m. lal, j.1. the judgment delivered in writ petition mo. 3129 (mb) of 1996, shall govern disposal of all the six writ petitions filed in the shape of public interest litigation challenging the constitutional validity of the proclamation dated 17-10-1996 issued by his excellency hon'ble the president of india in exercise of his powers conferred by article 356 of the constitution of india.2. thirteenth legislative assembly of uttar pradesh returned with fractured/hung verdict of the electorate resulting into presidential rule and the germane questions surfaced for judicial determination by this court are as under :(1) whether or not, in the given situation of instant case, continuation of presidential rule beyond one year is .....
Tag this Judgment!