Uttaranchal Court September 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.
Jitendra Kumar Verma Vs. Principal, Govt. P.G. College, Bageshwar and ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-20-2001
Reported in: (2002)1UPLBEC8
A. A. Desai, C.J. and M. C. Jam,0J.1. In this bunch of petitions, the common question involved is whether the student, above the age of 25 and the students who have been admitted provisionally could contest election of the student council.2. The learned counsel appearing in these petitioners have urged that the students have the right to contest election. The rules or instructions are arbitrary making discrimination by carving out various clauses which are not based on intelligible differentia. We heard the group of lawyers at length.3. Undisputedly election of the student council is a secondary activity in the academic sphere, may be University or College. Undisputedly further, this right is not conferred on the student by statute either. The University or College Authorities are competent to regulate this ancillary activity. While regulating, if they are imposing certain prohibitions or restrictions on the particular category of students namely, who are above the age of 25 and those ...
Vijay Pal Singh Rawat Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Garhwal and o ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-17-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR397]; (2002)1UPLBEC2
P.C. Verma, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 17/24.5-2001 passed by respondent No. 1 District Inspector of Schools, Paurl Garhwal on the representation of respondent No. 2 holding the petitioner to be junior to respondent No. 2.2. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner has been held junior to respondent No. 2 on the ground that on the day of promotion, the petitioner was not having M.A. qualification and, therefore, he could not have been promoted on the post of Lecturer on 17.3.1981. The respondent No. 2 was having full qualification and was promoted in September, 1981. Therefore, the petitioner was not holding a post in substantive capacity as there is no promotion order after he acquired M.A. qualification and respondent No. 2 was holding post substantively as such respondent No. 2 was senior to petitioner.3. The order passed by the District Inspector of Schools suffers from non-application ...
Jagat Ram Vs. District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal and ors.
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR1177]
P.C. Verma, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 29.3.1997, by which the services of the petitioner was terminated by respondent No. 1 from the post of Junior Clerk. Tehsil Dhumakol, District Pauri Garhwal.2. Some limes in the year 1989, the posts of Junior Clerks were advertised by respondent No. 1. The petitioner applied for the appointment on one of the same posts and appeared in the written test/interview on 21.8.1989, result of which was declared on 22.8.1989, which is contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner was selected for appointment in the said written test/interview on the post of Junior Clerk but he was appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin. Later on, services of the petitioner was terminated on the ground that there was no sanction of the Commissioner for appointment of Seasonal Collection Amin during that period. Then the petitioner was appointed on Class-IV post in the year 1990. Thereafter the petitioner wa...
Ramesh Chandra Gangwar Vs. Additional Secretary, Forest and Rural Deve ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-11-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR396]; (2002)1UPLBEC1
P.C. Verma, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 20.8.2001 passed by respondent No. 1 and the consequential order dated 31.8.2001 passed by the respondent No. 2.2. The petitioner is an employee of the Apex Co-operative Society known as U. P. Co-operative Society Sugar factory Federation. He was appointed under the regulations framed by the Apex Co-operative Society which has become now Multi-State Co-operative Society as It is having an area of operation in both the Stales by virtue of Section 95 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984. Thus, initially, relieving of the petitioner for Uttaranchal was illegal. He could have been posted in any Co-operative Sugar Factory by the Managing Director. Now the petitioner is again being sent back to join at Lucknow under the orders of the Cane and Sugar Commissioner dated 31.8.2001, who happens to be Registrar of Co-operative Sugar Factories of Uttaranchal. ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›