Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 114 (1.17 seconds)
Documents citing Shitla Prasad Shukla vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 19 May, 1986

Akash Goel vs State Of U.P. And Others on 8 January, 2014

In the case of Shiv Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and others (Supra) the petitioner therein was adopted when he was two years old and started living with his adoptive parents and adoption deed was also got registered. On consideration of provisions of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1974, it has been held that the petitioner therein was entitled for the claim of compassionate appointment.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R Kumar - Full Document

Sanjay Agarwal Son Of Khushi Ram Gupta vs State Of Uttar Pradesh Through ... on 15 June, 2007

49. The judgment in Shitla Prasad Shukla (Supra) has been confirmed by the Apex Court by dismissing the appeal in Shitla Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. and Ors. . Therefore, from a bare reading and plain construction of the language of Article 233(2) of the Constitution, we have no manner of doubt that a person who is eligible must already have completed seven years as an advocate or pleader and only thereafter he can be recommended by the High Court for appointment. It is true that eligibility is relevant for appointment but the process of recommendation cannot be considered out side the process of appointment but is a part and parcel thereof.
Allahabad High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Ram Pal Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 21 December, 2012

93. For the purpose of seniority, it is the date of substantive appointment in the grade which is relevant and nothing else and this issue has been determined finally by a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Prem Balika Rai Vs. Regional Inspectress of Girls School 1993 (2) UPLBEC 872 and the Apex Court's decision in Shitala Prasad Shukla Vs. State of U.P. (supra). The ad-hoc service rendered by appellant, therefore, would not count for seniority.
Allahabad High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harjinder Pal Singh And Ors vs Punjab Stat Epower Corp. Ltd And Ors on 12 July, 2016

In support of his submissions, Mr. Anupam Gupta relies on a direct ruling of the Supreme Court in Shitala Prasad Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & others, AIR 1986 SC 1859, which case arose in somewhat similar circumstances. The facts of the case were that the appellant was working as an Assistant Teacher in an Institution, which was upgraded into an Intermediate College under the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The appellant started teaching Hindi in the upgraded College, but he did not possess the requisite qualification of B.A. degree in Sanskrit and therefore he was not entitled to be appointed in the Lecturer's grade as Lecturer (Hindi) having regard to the prohibition contained in Section 16-F of the said Act. The appellant however could have been appointed as a Lecturer in Hindi if he was exempted from possessing such qualifications in exercise of powers under sub- section (i) of Section 16-E of the Act. The appellant made an application for exemption. Such application was granted by the Board of High School and 8 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 15-07-2016 00:10:54 ::: 9 CWP No.11006 of 2012 (O&M) Intermediate Education, UP by its order dated 23.07.1963. The contention of the appellant was that the Board had actually granted exemption only on 23.07.1963, he must be deemed to have been exempted retrospectively from 04.11.1960, the date on which he made the application for exemption. If the deeming exemption was granted to him he would succeed. If the contention was untenable, the appellant must fail. This was the situation in the appeal before the Supreme Court. On facts, it was found that initially the Board was disinclined to grant exemption to the appellant and had insisted on the appellant securing the requisite qualification by appearing in an examination, from an appropriate institution. When this is the factual position, how could the appellant contend that the Board must be deemed to have granted the exemption from the date of his application. The argument was not accepted that the Board had granted exemption with retrospective effect or that the exemption must relate back to the date of the making of the application. Besides, the language of Section 16E of the Act does not admit of the construction canvassed on behalf of the appellant viz. that the Board can grant exemption with retrospective effect. The Supreme Court held that it would be reasonable to construe the section as enabling the Board to exercise the power to grant exemption prospectively after considering the report and taking into account the relevant circumstances which would by the very nature of things be with prospective effect and not with retrospective effect. To accede to the construction canvassed on behalf of the appellant would be to hold that any unqualified person can be appointed even without possessing the minimum qualifications subject to post facto exemption being granted. Till the exemption is granted the person is not qualified to be appointed. In other words, he would be lacking in the basic qualification for being appointed. This deficiency cannot be made good with retroactive exemption unless the provision itself 9 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 15-07-2016 00:10:54 ::: 10 CWP No.11006 of 2012 (O&M) expressly or by necessary implication contemplates such a course of action. Even otherwise, the Supreme Court held that it is not sufficient to show that retrospective exemption could have been granted. It must also be shown that retrospective exemption was in fact granted. Section 16E of the Act deserves to be noticed. It reads as under:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 21 - R N Raina - Full Document

Mukund Singh Son Of Abhayraj Singh, ... vs Joint Director Education (Sayuktya ... on 27 October, 2006

33. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 Sri. P. N. Saxena has placed reliance upon the decision of the High Court in the case of Shitla Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 UPLBEC 461, which has also been upheld by the Apex Court in case of Shitala Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1986 UPLBEC 473, and has contended that in the absence of order of exemption in the qualification as provided by proviso to Section 16-E (3), the petitioner could not have been appointed. The facts of the said case arc quite distinct from the facts and circumstances of the present case and as such in my opinion the said decision is of no help to the respondents. In the present case the petitioner is not seeking any exemption from the minimum qualifications prescribed under the Regulations. The Appendix-A to the Regulations itself provides that Sanskrit in Intermediate would not be a necessary qualification for appointment of a Hindi Teacher provided a teacher is otherwise available at the institution to teach the Sanskrit portion of Hindi course. Therefore, there is no requirement of any express exemption in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The minimum qualification prescribed stood automatically relaxed in the above contingency.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - P Mithal - Full Document

Prafulla Kumar Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Secondary ... on 13 August, 2021

In the case of Shitala Prasad Shukla (supra), though the dispute was pertaining to seniority and the District Inspector of Schools had held certain persons to be senior to the appellant Shitala Prasad Shukla which order had been affirmed by the High Court yet from the said judgment it nowhere comes out that various seniority lists had been issued and no objections had been raised by the persons claiming seniority over Shitala Prasad Shukla or that the objections were raised belatedly.
Allahabad High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - A Moin - Full Document

The Secretary To Government vs M.Saravanan on 12 August, 2022

27.The law permits promotion with retrospective effect only in exceptional circumstances when there has been some legal impediment in making the promotions, like an intervention by the Court. An officer cannot be granted seniority prior to his birth in the cadre adversely affecting the seniority of other officer who had been appointed prior to him. "The late comers to the regular stream cannot steal a march over the early arrivals in the regular 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.857 of 2022 queue" (vide Dr. S.P. Kapoor vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 2181; Shitala Prasad Shukla vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1986 SC 1859; and Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn. (Direct Recruit) & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2006) 10 SCC 346).”
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S S Sundar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next