Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.35 seconds)

Shreyaskar Tripathi vs State Of U.P. & Others on 26 November, 2010

The decisions in Ratan Pal Singh vs. Deputy Director of Education 1983 UPLBEC 34 and Committee of Management, National Inter College vs. the Inspector of Schools Azamgarh 1983 UPLBEC 198, were held not to lay down correct law and the decision in Har Swarup Misra vs. State of UP 1978 ALR 215 was upheld. A transfer according to majority view cannot be made as a device to make appointment, with respect to which the power vests with the Commission. When the legislature has used two different terms in the same statutes, namely 'transfer', and 'appointment', they cannot be placed at par. The minority view of Justice B.D. Aggarwal holding that even after enforcement of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards Act 1982 (UP Act No. 2 of 1982) and the rules framed thereunder, the provisions of Section 16-6 (2) (c) of the Act and Regulations 55 to 62 of Chapter III, of transfer will continue to be operative and effective, did not prevail.
Allahabad High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 3 - S Ambwani - Full Document

C/M S.S.B.P.K.Inter ... vs D. I. O. S. ,Basti & Others on 25 September, 2012

As regards the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Inspector of Schools was not required to record the finding with regard to charges as a disciplinary authority, I find some force in the said submission. This Court in Writ A No. 39441 of 2012 (Committee of Management Moti Lal Nehru Smarak Inter College & Another Vs. District Inspector of Schools Azamgarh & Others) decided on 03.09.2012 has held that the District Inspector of Schools should not act as an Inquiry Officer and record his finding on the charges against the Principal/Teachers.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - P K Baghel - Full Document

Purshottam Pandey S/O Rama Kant Pandey vs State Of U.P. Through Its Secretary ... on 2 April, 2007

5. In view of the categorical subjective satisfaction being recorded by the prescribed authority in the impugned orders, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the suspension order. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, it is made clear, that in view of the decision of this Court in Sadri Ram v. District Magistrate, Azamgarh and Ors. v. District Magistrate, Azamgarh and Ors. 1998(37)ACC 830, and in the decision of Ravindra Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr. 2003(53) ALR 484, holding that an arms licence could not be suspended for an indefinite period, 1 direct the authority to decide the objections of the petitioners and take a final decision in the matter within three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - T Agarwala - Full Document
1