Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.69 seconds)
Documents citing District Inspector Of Schools, Kanpur ... vs Diwakar Lal And Others on 25 May, 2000

Jahaj Pal vs Dios And Another on 31 May, 2013

25. The view taken in Surendra Kumar Srivastava's case (supra), by placing reliance on Full Bench decision in Pramila Mishra's case (supra), that an ad hoc appointee against the short-term vacancy would cease on cessation of short-term vacancy for any reason whatsoever including where vacancy is converted into a substantive one, in our considered view is in conflict with the earlier Division Bench decisions of this Court in the cases of Raj Kumar Verma & Anr. v. District Inspector of Schools, Saharanpur reported in 1999 (2) UPLBEC 1420 ; District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar v. Diwakar Lal reported in 2000 (3) ESC 1670 ; Smt. Shashi Saxena and others v. Deputy Director of Education and others reported in 2000 (3) ESC 1990 ; Raghuvendra Babu Misra v. District Inspector of Schools, Etah and others reported in 2002 (3) E.S.C. 68.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - S Harkauli - Full Document

Sarita Gupta (Smt.) vs District Inspector Of Schools And Ors. on 14 February, 2005

16. The aforesaid conclusion of the full Bench of this Court has been explained by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment in the case of District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar v. Diwakar Lal (supra), wherein it has been held that an adhoc appointee in the short-term vacancy normally be allowed to continue, if there is no complaint about his working, till regular adhoc appointment is made against the substantive vacancy as contemplated under the Removal of Difficulties Order, It is in this background that the judgment of Ram Shanker Pandey v. State of U.P. (supra) has to be read.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - A Tandon - Full Document

Surendra Kumar Srivastava S/O Late Sri ... vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary ... on 25 August, 2006

However, in Diwaker Lal (supra) the direction contained in para-15 cannot be said to be even obiter dictum. Neither on the aforesaid aspect there was any pleading nor the issue was raised and argued nor decided. In order to form an opinion on a question of law decided in a case, there must first be a foundation based on facts laid in the pleadings; the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of facts arrived at by the Court and it would have been necessary to be decided for adjudication of the case for a just and proper decision.
Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Nirmal Kumar Srivastava [Objection ... vs State Of U.P. Through Secy. on 9 June, 2016

7. To strengthen his arguments, Mr. Pandey has placed reliance upon Full Bench decision rendered in the case of Radha Raizada and others Vs. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girl's Inter College and others;1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551, Charu Chandra Tiwari Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and others : (1990) 1 UPLBEC 160, Prem Prakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others : 2012 (30) LCD 1354, Devendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others : 2004 (22) LCD 127, District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar and others Vs. Diwakar Lal & others : (2000) 3 UPLBEC 2494, Rakesh Kumar Shukla Vs. Joint Director (Education) & others : 2007 (25) LCD 445 and Udai Raj Misra Vs. State of U.P. And others (writ petition No. 89 of 1999 (SS), decided on 12.3.2014.
Allahabad High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - D K Arora - Full Document

State Of Up And 3 Others vs Lalta Prasad Mishra And Another on 23 September, 2025

9. The said questions were answered with the following observations:- "A. Question (a) is answered in affirmative. We hold that tenure of ad hoc appointed teachers against short-term vacancies, provided in Para 3 of Second Order, is mandatory and will continue to hold the field till 06.08.1993. On and after 07.08.1993, when Section 33-B was enacted and enforced, teachers who come within the ambit of Section 33-B and entitled to be considered for substantive appointment thereunder, their tenure would be governed by sub-section (5) and till such teachers are not considered by Selection Committee for substantive appointment, they will be entitled to continue even if any contingency, referred to in Para 3 of Second order, has arisen on and after 07.08.1993. In other words, Section 33-B wherever applicable, shall prevail over Para 3 of Second Order, but, in cases where Section 33-B is not applicable and ad hoc appointment is made against short term vacancies as per procedure prescribed in Second Order, in those cases only, even after 07.08.1993, tenure provided in Para 3 shall be applicable. B. In view of the conclusion noted above and answer to question (a), question (b) is answered in negative. C. Question (c) is answered in affirmance. D. Question (d) is answered as under: (i) Decision in District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar and others vs. Diwakar Lal and others (supra) is overruled to the extent as stated in para 180 to 182 above.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harish Chandra Rai vs District Inspector Of Schools And Ors. on 24 November, 2003

The writ petition came for hearing before the Court and it was dismissed on 5.11.2003. The learned Judge of this Court observed in his judgment that the appointment of the appellant was disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools on the ground that even a C.T. grade teacher could be appointed on ad hoc basis only after following-the procedure of appointment under Paragraph 5 of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. Challenging the said order dated 5.11.2003 Dr. R. G. Padia, counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant's case is fully covered by the provisions of Section 33A (1C) of the U. P. Secondary Education (Service Selection Boards) Act, 1982 and the appellant is entitled for being given regular appointment by virtue of the said provision ; hence the learned single Judge of this Court committed error in rejecting the writ petition. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on two Division Bench judgments of this Court in Smt. Shashi Saxena and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Education and Ors.. 2000 (4) AWC 2685 : 2000 (3) ESC 1999 (All) and District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar and Ors. v. Diwakar Lal and Ors., 2000 (3) AWC 2182 : 2000 (3) ESC 1670 (All).
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Miss Sunita Sharma And Anr. vs District Inspector Of Schools And Ors. on 29 January, 2003

8. On behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners reliance has been made on a decision in Education Service Cases at page 1670--District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar and Ors. v. Diwakar Lal and Ors., 200O (3) AWC 2182 : 2000 (3) ESC 1670 (All) (Special Appeal No. 40 of 2000 decided on 25th May, 2000), wherein it is mentioned that the fresh ground in the counter-affidavit cannot be taken by the authority concerned. Para 7 of the above case reads as under :
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - R B Misra - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Singh vs District Inspector Of Schools And Anr. on 28 January, 2004

8. On behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners reliance has been made on a decision in District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar and Ors. v. Diwakar Lal and Ors., 2000 (3) AWC 2182 : 2000 (3) ESC 1670 (All), Special Appeal No. 40 of 2000 decided on 25th May, 2000, wherein it is mentioned that the fresh ground in the counter-affidavit cannot be taken by the authority concerned. Para 7 of the above case reads as under :
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - R B Misra - Full Document

Rehman Ahmad Khan vs D.I.O.S. And Ors. on 3 November, 2003

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on two Division Bench decisions of this Court rendered in District inspector of Schools. Kanpur Nagar and Ors. v. Diwakar Lal and Ors.. 2000 (3) AWC 2182 : 2000 (3) ESC 1670 and Ashika Prasad Shukla v. District Inspector of Schools. Allahabad and Anr., 1998 (3) AWC 2150 : (1998) 3 UPLBEC 1722, in support of his contention that even though the advertisement may not have been made in newspaper but that by itself will not invalidate the appointment.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V Saran - Full Document
1   2 Next