Uttaranchal Court August 2001 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.
Manoj Kumar and ors. Vs. Basic Education Officer and anr.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-30-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR1256]; (2002)1UPLBEC4
P.C. Verma, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.2. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that despite the selection being held for the appointment on the posts of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools, result was not declared for the reason that the High Court, Allahabad delivered judgment on 20.11.1996 in Writ Petition No. 6231 of 1996, by which it was provided thai only B.Ed. candidates shall be appointed as Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools if the B.T.C. candidates are not available. The petitioners are C.P.Ed, certificate holders and in view of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioners could not be appointed. Apart from that, a Government Order was also issued by - the State of Uttar Pradesh on 11th August. 1997, which clearly provides that B.T.C. trained candidates shall be appointed in Primary Schools. A scheme was also launched in the State of Uttar Pradesh to give training to the B.Ed., C.P.Ed, certificate ...
Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-28-2001
Reported in: (2002)1UPLBEC3
P.C. Verma and M.C. Jain, JJ. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after appointed date, he initially opted for Uttar Pradesh, but after re-thinking over the matter, the petitioner withdrew the first option and has opted for Uttaranchal. But despite his second option, he is being relieved for Uttar Pradesh though no final allocation has been made as yet by the Government of India. Under the U. P. Reorganisation Act, final allocation is to be made by the Government of India.2. Therefore, till final decision is taken by the Government of India as per Section 73 of the U. P. Reorganisation Act, the petitioner shall not be compelled to go and join in the State of U. P. If he has already been relieved, he shall be allowed to continue, and any order passed in connection with his relieving shall be inoperative.3. The petition is disposed of accordingly....
Pan Singh Negi and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-24-2001
Reported in: (2002)1UPLBEC19
P.C. Verma, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Learned Counsel for U.P. Forest Corporation made a statement before this Court that restructuring of Assistant Logging Officer and Deputy Logging Officer was made by U.P. Forest Corporation before the creation of Uttaranchal. Now the Utaranchal Van Vikas Nigam has been established, hence it shall not be made effectively applicable in U.P. Forest Corporation.3. In view of this statement, the grievance of the petitioners does not service. However, it is open for the petitioners to make proper representation before Chairman, Uttaranchal Van Vikas Nigam who shall pass appropriate order on it within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.4. Subject to above, the writ petition is disposed of finally....
Mahesh Chandra Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3891
M.C. Jain, J.1. Accused-appellant Mahesh Chandra and one another Nand Kishore alias Nandu were tried for the offence punishable Under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. in Sessions Trial No. 32 of 2000 before the Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal. By the judgment dated 28-2-2001, the learned trial Court acquitted Nand Kishore alias Nandu, but convicted the accused-appellant Mahesh Chandra Under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment for the murder of one Chandra Mohan Kohli. Aggrieved, he has preferred this appeal.2. Broad spectrum of the case and the evidence may be detailed for proper appreciation. The incident allegedly took place in between the night of 7/8-4-2000 in village Gandariyakhal, within P. S. Kotdwara, district Pauri Garhwal. The report of the incident was lodged by one Rajendra Prasad Sati at the concerned police station on 8-4-2000 at 10.30 a.m. stating that on being informed that the dead-body of Chandr...
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR293]; (2002)1UPLBEC20
P.C. Verma, J. 1. The two writ petitions are related to each other in which two awards made by the Labour Court in respect of the same employee-respondent No. 3 have been challenged. Award dated 28.2.1995 has been challenged in the writ petition No. 31224 of 1995, whereas it is the Award dated 31.8.1995 which is under challenge in the second writ petition.2. The relevant facts may be set forth. The petitioner (BHEL) is an undertaking of the Government of India, engaged in the production of the heavy electrical equipments. The respondent No. 3 Teekam Singh Verma was initially appointed as Apparantice Turner on 28.2.1970. On completion of apparanticeship training, he was appointed on the post of Trademan, Grade IV-Turner w.e.f. 10.2.1971 and was promoted as Trademan Grade-III w.e.f. 3.7.1974. He allegedly committed theft of bronze weighing about 23 kgs. of the company on 9.5.1979 and was caught red-handed by the Security Staff. An FIR under Section 379/411, IPC was lodged against him and...
Harish Kumar Sahni and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: (2002)1UPLBEC24
A. Desai, C.J. and M. C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner is transferee of a Nazul land from original lease holder. Undisputedly, the transfer in favour of the petitioner is not with the consent of the original lessor. We, therefore, do not agree with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Manoj Tewari that he is a bona fide purchaser. Even otherwise, the original lease itself was cancelled by the Government. His submission that the order is not reasoned and he is entitled to be heard is also untenable in view of the nature of transaction in which the petitioner indulged. Moreover, from the document presented by learned Advocate General Government took possession of the land, in question of 26.3.1991 and to this document, it is reported that the petitioner is a party. In view of this, we dismiss the petition.2. Interim order in case, if any, passed in favour of the petitioner has become infructuous....
Ashok Kumar Vs. Director, Local Bodies, Lucknow and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-09-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR931]; (2002)1UPLBEC17
P.C. Verma, J.1. Since both these writ petitions are connected with each others, hence both are being disposed of by a common order.2. Petitioner Ashok Kumar filed this writ petition seeking writ of mandamus to allow him to join in the office of Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital as he has been sent on deputation by the Commissioner, Kumaon Division. Nainital from Nagar Palika Parishad. Rudrapur (Udham Singh Nagar). According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Commissioner exercises the delegated power conferred upon him by the State Government and in exercise of that power. Commissioner has sent the petitioner on deputation in the office of Nagar Palika Parishad. Nainital.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any direct provision providing for delegation of power by the State Government to the Commissioner delegating the power of the appointing authority, but relied on Section 327 of U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, which reads as under :'327. Delegatio...
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ886UC; 2003LabIC2630
P.C. Verma, J. 1. The two writ petitions arc related to each other in which two Awards made by the Labour Court in respect of the same employee-respondent No. 3 have been challenged. Award dated February 28, 1995 has been challenged in the Writ Petition No. 31224 of 1995, whereas it is the Award dated August 31, 1995 which is under challenge in the second writ petition.2. The relevant facts may be set forth. The petitioners (BHEL) is an undertaking of the Government of India engaged in the production of heavy electrical equipments. The respondent No. 3 Teekam Singh Verma was initially appointed as Apprentice Turner on February 28, 1970 on completion of apprenticeship training, he was appointed on the post of Trademan, Grade IV-Turner, w.e.f. February 10, 1971 and was promoted as Trademan Grade III w.e.f. July 3, 1974. He allegedly committed theft of bronze weighing about 23 kgs. of the company on May 9, 1979 and was caught red-handed by the Security Staff. An F.I.R. under Section 379/4...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›