Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (5.21 seconds)
Documents citing Ravishankar Dube And Ors. vs Board Of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, ... on 22 September, 1972

Umesh Kumar Sharma vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 15 September, 2011

In view of the aforesaid facts, it appears that the petitioner was appointed prior to enforcement of the Act of 1993 and he has also cleared teachers training certificate examination prior to enforcement of the Act and, therefore, as per the decision rendered by this Court reported in the case of Ravishankar Dubey (supra), it has been held that once a teacher has cleared teachers training certificate 5 examination prior to enforcement of the Act of 1993, it cannot be said that his services were irregular.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - D N Patel - Full Document

Om Prakash Gope vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 15 September, 2011

In view of the aforesaid facts, it appears that 5 the petitioner was appointed prior to enforcement of the Act of 1993 and he has also cleared teachers training certificate examination prior to enforcement of the Act and, therefore, as per the decision rendered by this Court reported in the case of Ravishankar Dubey (supra), it has been held that once a teacher has cleared teachers training certificate examination prior to enforcement of the Act of 1993, it cannot be said that his services were irregular.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - D N Patel - Full Document

Dinesh Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 November, 2017

Ravishankar Dubey and others Vs. Board of Revenue and others, 1973 MPLJ (FB) 43 = 1972 JLJ 934 and Municipal Council Khandwa Vs. Santosh Kumar and others, 1975 MPLJ (FB) 33 = 1975 JLJ 48. Aforesaid cases do not relate to the revision under Panchayat Adhiniyam, therefore, I do not feel it necessary to dwell upon them any more. Reference has also been made to the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of S.M Sahkari Samiti Vs. 8 WA.401.2017 CEO, Janpad Panchayat, 2008(2) MPLJ 194 = 2008(1) M.P.H.T. 254, wherein it has been held that there can be no doubt that a resolution can be challenged in an appeal or revision as per substantive provision of the Panchayat Adhiniyam.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Babaji vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 March, 2022

2. After considering on the submission and in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Ravishankar & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors, reported in AIR 1973 MP 52, the question has been considered as to whether the second appeal lies under Section 44 of the M.P. Land Revenue 2 Code, 1959 and also the question as to whether the power of revision under Section 50 of the Code can be invoked in exercise of order passed under Ceiling Act. Both the questions have been answered in affirmative. Hence, this being the position in law, the petitioner has the remedy available to file a revision against the impugned order, which has been passed by the respondent No.3. Hence, this petition is disposed off. The petitioner is granted liberty to prefer a revision, before the Board of Revenue within a time limit of 30 days and on filing of such revision petition, the Board of Revenue shall be obliged to hear the revision petition and take decision at the earliest within a time limit of six months.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - R C Samant - Full Document

Gram Panchayat Shyamgiri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 8 October, 2013

As to contention that second revision was not tenable before the State Minister, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, the same is no more res integra and has been settled at rest by decision in Abdul Hasan Qureshi vs. State of M.P. and others 2009 (1) MPHT 322 wherein while relying on the decision in Ravishankar Dube and others vs. Board of Revenue, M.P. and others 1972 JLJ 934 and Municipal Council, Khandwa vs. Santosh Kumar and others, 1975 JLJ 48 it has been held that :-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1