Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)10SCC641
Order 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This case unfolds a very sad affair in a school where the selection of Respondent 3 as Headmistress of the school was made in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. It has been established beyond doubt that the father of Respondent 3 being the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school participated in the selection of his daughter, Respondent 3 and later on confirmation was given about such selection in favour of Respondent 3 where Respondent 3 by virtue of improper selection also constituted as one of the members of the Managing Committee giving confirmation. In the aforesaid circumstances, we set aside the selection of Respondent 3 as the Headmistress of the said school. Respondent 3 will cease to function as Headmistress of the said school with immediate effect. The Managing Committee of the school will take immediate steps to select the Headmaster or Headmistress of the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2101; JT1997(4)SC195; 1997(3)SCALE344; (1997)4SCC278; [1997]2SCR1152
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. This appeal by special leave arises from the order passed on March 31, 1995 by C.A.T., New Delhi in O.A. No. 1801/94.4. The post of E.C.G. Technician in the Grade of Rs. 1200-2040 became vacant on November 30, 1993 in the Central Hospital, Northern Railway due to retirement, Mrs. William Chand, a general candidate, holding that post. For promotion of Theater Assistants to the said post, trade test was conducted in which Smt. Prakash Kaur belonging to Scheduled Castes and two others were called. The vacancy to be filled up was reserved for Scheduled Castes in a carry forward post as per the rotation of the roster. In the trade test held on December 8. 1994, Smt. Prakash Kaur was found suitable and she was accordingly promoted as E.C.G. Technician w.e.f. December 9, 1994. The respondent an unsuccessful candidate filed O.A. in the Tribunal contending that since the post of E.C.G. Technician is the solitary ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(7)SC275; (1998)9SCC93
ORDER1. We have heard all the counsel. Mr M.C. Mehta, petitioner-in-person filed the application seeking directions (i) to take action against the authorities responsible for damaging and destroying the green belt within 500 metres of Taj Mahal; (ii) to direct the State of U.P. to shift the venue of Yanni concert beyond 500 metres from the Taj Mahal as recommended by the Expert Committee of the Central Pollution Control Board; (iii) to direct the Union of India and the State of U.P. not to allow any vehicles, generators or sound equipments within 500 metres of Taj Mahal. (iv) He also sought for direction to constitute a committee to take necessary steps to protect the green belt as directed by this Court on the earlier occasion.2. Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, the learned Additional Advocate General of U.P. has stated that he and the Additional Solicitor General personally inspected the site at which Yanni has set up the venue for organising the sound show and a photograph has been placed befor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2100; JT1997(4)SC193; (1997)IILLJ152SC; 1997(3)SCALE334; (1997)4SCC284; [1997]2SCR1157
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. This appeal, by special leave, arises from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur, made on April 16, 1996 in O.A. No. 466/94.4. The appellant was initially suspended and charge-sheet was laid against him on April 29, 1974. His order of dismissal was ultimately set aside and thereafter he was reinstated into the service by the Tribunal's order dated March 13,1992 in O.A. No. 261/91. It would appear that while setting aside the order of dismissal the Tribunal had passed the order that the appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits which he could have earned had he been in service. Since in spite of his representations, he was not given consequential benefits, he filed contempt application on December 11, 1992, which was dismissed by the Tribunal on July 29, 1993. Thereafter, the appellant filed the present O.A. for a direction to implement the order dated March 13, 1992. The Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2098; JT1997(5)SC189; 1997(3)SCALE389; (1997)4SCC559; [1997]2SCR1173
ORDER1. These special leave petitions arise from the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, made on 11.11.1996 in Writ Appeal No. 1196/96 and Writ petition No. 19865/96. The petitioner had applied for grant of a lease of land from the owners thereof, respondents 4-7 on August 22, 1991 for a period of 15 years to win over black granite over an extent of 12.08 acres of land in S. Nos. 105/1, 2, 3 of R.I. Puram village, Chimakkurthy Manal, Prakasam District in Andhra Pradesh. The Director granted the mining lease for six months on August 11, 1994, pending further proceedings. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-owner filed writ Petition No. 15615/94 challenging the grant of lease without their consent. The writ petition was disposed of on 7.10.1994 with a direction that the lease could be granted only with consent of the respondent-owners. However, without obtaining their consent, lease was executed on January 5,1995 for 15 years. Notice was issued by the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3775; JT1997(4)SC197; 1997(3)SCALE349; (1997)4SCC416; [1997]2SCR1160
1. Leave granted. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides. 2. This appeal, by special leave arise from the order of the H.P. Administrative Tribunal, made on October 28, 1996 in O.A. No. 788/95. 3. The determination of inter-se seniority of the direct recruits is the only question in this case. The appellants and the respondents came to be selected by direct recruitment against vacancies in the permanent posts of Excise and Taxation Inspectors in the H.P. Excise and Taxation Department (Inspectorate staff, Class III) Service. The question relates to the interpretation of Rule 11 of the (seniority) service Rules read with Rule 4 (Examination) of the Rules. It is : whether examination has to be passed within two years from the date of appointment on probation or within the extended period of four years? If a candidate passes the examination within two years from the date of the appointment and joins the duty, indisputably under Rule 11(3) of the Rules, on confirmation on the expiry o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(5)SC214; 1997(3)SCALE398; (1999)4SCC250; [1997]2SCR1183; (1997)2UPLBEC1131
1. Leave granted. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.2. The third respondent, Dr. B.S. Goel, while working as Head of the Department of Statistics in MMD Degree College, Modinagar had gone on foreign assignment in Basra University, Iraq for a period of one year. Subsequently, a letter was written by the Managing Committee on August 20, 1979 seeking the third respondent to join duty. Since he did not join the duty, the managing committee passed a Resolution to hold an enquiry into unauthorised absence from duty. On 27,2.1980, a charge-sheet in the shape of a letter was sent to respondent No. 3. He did not participate in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 19.6.1980. The Managing Committee, on consideration of the report, dismissed the third respondent on 31.7.1980 subject to the confirmation by the Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor in his letter dated 19.12.1980 stated that since the third respondent had gone on foreign assignment, with the approval give...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)10SCC682
ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22-7-1992 passed by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in WP No. 4651 of 1992. Respondent 1 (hereinafter to be referred to as the respondent) was given a temporary appointment as a Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police Force. There is no dispute that such temporary appointment had been given on 1-5-1982 and the respondent continued without being confirmed till his service was terminated on 4-11-1987. 3. The order of termination of service was challenged by the respondent before the Services Tribunal of U.P. under the provisions of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975. The Tribunal inter alia came to the finding that the order of termination was passed as a penal measure without following the procedure of disciplinary proceeding and accordingly set aside the order of termination. The said order was thereafter challenged in the writ petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(4)SC302; 1997(3)SCALE346; (1997)10SCC182; [1997]2SCR1167
CA Nos. 2409, 2411-12, 2410, 2413/97:[@ SLP (c) Nos. 24783, 24786, 24787, 24784 & 25148/96]1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.2. We have heard the counsel on both sides. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, made on May 2, 1996 in F.A. No. 757/86 and batch.3. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') was published on May 9, 1970. The Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on March 28, 1980. The respondents claimed a reference under Section 18. The District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 14/- per sq. yd. by his award and decree dated May 15, 1985. The reference Court also applied the provisions of Amendment Act 68 of 1984 and granted enhanced benefits under the Amendment Act. The Appellant-Parishad claimed that the amendment Act is not applicable since the proceedings were initiated under the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Act under which special procedure has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2333; JT1997(5)SC216; 1997(3)SCALE397; (1997)4SCC340; [1997]2SCR1180
1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, made on 22.4.1996 in Writ Petition No. 703/94.3. The appellant claimed to be a member of the Scheduled Tribes. Admittedly, the appellant is 'Thakur' by caste, a forward caste. His grandfather was shown as a 'Thakur' but not as 'Ka' or 'Ma' Thakur. In Maharashtra, 'Ma Thakur' or 'Ka Thakur' are described as Scheduled Tribes. The appellant, therefore, claimed the status of a Scheduled Tribe and made an application to the authorities for issuance of the Caste Certificate. After due enquiry, the Scrutiny Committee Constituted negatived the claim of the appellant for status of a Scheduled Tribe. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court which observed out that the Committee has minutely enquired into the findings and stated as under:This Court Cannot examined the material on record as a Appellate Authority. If the conclusion reached by the Committee is possible on...
Tag this Judgment!