Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)
Documents citing Dharam Veer And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. [Alongwith Civil ... on 27 April, 1998

Anjani Kumar Dubey & Others vs High Court Of Judicature At Alld. Thru' ... on 4 January, 2010

The contention of the petitioners that they have been appointed by the District Judge on adhoc basis cannot be accepted inasmuch as the District Judge cannot exercise a discretion bereft of any procedure conforming to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. There is nothing on record to indicate that any reasonable procedure was employed for appointing the petitioners and as such the claim of the petitioners cannot be accepted. This aspect had been dealt with in the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Veer Pal Singh (supra) decided on 27.11.2009.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 24 - A P Sahi - Full Document

Panchami Singh vs Junior Director Of Education And Ors. on 19 December, 2002

5. At the time of the appointment of the third respondent in the year 1972, he was not trained. The third respondent became a trained teacher when he acquired B.T.C. certificate in the year 1974-75. The date of substantive appointment of the third respondent is entered in his service book as 1.7.1975. The petitioner on the other hand was appointed as assistant teacher on 1.10.1975 but he was not trained. He acquired the B. Ed. qualification on 1.8.1977. Whether B. Ed. qualification is a sufficient training qualification is in dispute. It is submitted on behalf of the third respondent that B. Ed. is not a sufficient training qualification and as such, the petitioner can claim no seniority over the third respondent. Reliance is placed upon a decision in Dharm Veer Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors., 2001 (1) AWC 254 : 2000 (4) ESC 2838, in which it was held that B. Ed. training qualification cannot be treated to be equivalent or higher to teachers training certificate envisaged in Rule 4 (2) (b) of the 1978 Rules. The case of the petitioner is that his appointment was approved by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari under the three Language Scheme of appointment as Sanskrit teacher on 30.3.1979. Even if B. Ed. is taken to be a sufficient training qualification, the petitioner became a qualified trained teacher only from the date he acquired the B. Ed. qualification on 1.8.1977.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - J Sahai - Full Document

Rakshpal vs State Of U.P. on 20 October, 2016

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that similarly placed co-accused ? Dharm Veer has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22.09.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32851 of 2016 - (Dharm Veer Vs. State of U.P) and the applicant whose role is identical of that co-accused - Dharm Veer.    He has also submitted that name of the applicant has been implicated on the basis of statement given by victim - Anita Devi, under Section 164 Cr.P.C, copy of which is annexed as annexure - 05 to this bail application.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - V Sinha - Full Document
1