Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Dhanpal And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 9 October, 2013

Krishna Kumar Mishra vs Department Of Posts on 11 May, 2026

However, similar issue fell for consideration before the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Dhanpal and Others v. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2013(8) ADJ 723 as well as in case of Akanksha Gautam v State of U.P. and Others reported in 2012(6) ADJ 10, the High Court held that the certificates issued by Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan up to the year 2008 are valid and Adhikari Pariksha Certificate issued by Gurukul Page 4 of 5 Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, is treated as a valid qualification equivalent to High School conducted by the recognized Board.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Javed Khan vs State Of U.P. Thru Secry. And 5 Others on 29 April, 2026

25. As far as arguments based upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dhanpal (supra) qua equivalence of Adhikari Pariksha with High School examination conducted by the U.P. Board of Secondary Education, we need not go into the said aspect of the matter as we are satisfied that once the appellant had secured appointment based upon forged and fabricated certificates; other aspects of the matter including alleged equivalence of the two qualifications and examinations, become irrelevant.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Meena Kumari Dubey vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 23 February, 2024

20. The legal hurdle i.e. petitioner has not challenged Clause 15 of Circular dated 18.1.2021, though material, but in view of Dhanpal (supra), it could be ignored, therefore, basis of impugned order i.e. Clause 15 of Circular dated 18.1.2021 could not held to be enforced retrospectively i.e. could not be enforced in respect of such candidates who have passed Intermediate in State of U.P. after passing School Leaving Certificate from Nepal before the amendment issued by Notification dated 5.3.2014 and undisputedly petitioner has passed School Leaving Certificate from Nepal in 1996 and Intermediate Examination from State of U.P. in 1998 i.e. about 16 years before amendment came into existence, therefore impugned order could not legally survive and is accordingly set-aside and its legal consequence shall follow subject to principles of 'no work no pay.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S S Shamshery - Full Document

Anand Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 12 March, 2024

20. The legal hurdle i.e. petitioner has not challenged Clause 15 of Circular dated 18.1.2021, though material, but in view of Dhanpal (supra), it could be ignored, therefore, basis of impugned order i.e. Clause 15 of Circular dated 18.1.2021 could not held to be enforced retrospectively i.e. could not be enforced in respect of such candidates who have passed Intermediate in State of U.P. after passing School Leaving Certificate from Nepal before the amendment issued by Notification dated 5.3.2014 and undisputedly petitioner has passed School Leaving Certificate from Nepal in 1996 and Intermediate Examination from State of U.P. in 1998 i.e. about 16 years before amendment came into existence, therefore impugned order could not legally survive and is accordingly set-aside and its legal consequence shall follow subject to principles of 'no work no pay."
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S S Shamshery - Full Document

Lal Chandra Maurya vs Union Of India on 4 October, 2018

In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the decision as mentioned in the impugned order dated 22.2.2010 (Annexure A-1) regarding validity of Adhikari Pariksha of Gurukal Viswavidyalaya, Vrindavan passed by the applicant in 2001 is not in accordance with the judgment dated 9.10.2013 of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Dhanpal and others (supra) as well as the letters of Madhyamika Shiksha Parisad, Allahabad enclosed with the counter affidavit of the official respondents. However, we are not inclined to interfere with the order dated 22.2.2010 in the light of the discussions in para 13 of this order.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajoo Rajak vs General Manager N C Rly on 24 April, 2025

2|Page institution and it was not acceptable by the Railway Department and on that ground vide order dated 04.04.2014, candidature of the applicant was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant filed the present original application for setting aside the order dated 04.04.2014 / 09.04.2014 and prayer is also made to issue direction to the respondent no. 2/3 to grant appointment to the applicant on the post of Gangmen under Larsgess Scheme. It is also argued that institution from where the applicant had obtained the high school and intermediate examination certificate is the recognized institution. This issue has come before the full bench of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 48208/2012 titled Dhanpal and others Vs State of U.P. and others and recognition of the institution concerned was found in order. Thus, observation recorded by the respondents in the impugned order is illegal. It is also argued that the applicant's case pertains to the year 2014 and at that time, scheme of Larsgess was in existence and thus only on this ground that scheme has now been terminated, applicant's case cannot be rejected. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the applicant referred to the judgment and order passed in the aforesaid writ as well as the educational certificates and further prayed to allow the OA directing the respondents to give appointment to the applicant under Larsgess scheme.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Indresh vs D/O Post on 19 January, 2026

9. It is an admitted position that the applicants passed Adhikari Pariksha prior to the year 2008 and that they had applied for the said examination within the prescribed time. Applicant No.1 had passed the said examination in the year 2001 and Applicant No.2 in the year 2007, and it is not disputed that both had English as one of the subjects and had passed the examination in a single year. The denial of permission to appear in the examination was solely on the ground that the said qualification was not treated as equivalent to High School. However, the said issue is no longer res integra. The Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Dhanpal and others vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-A No. 48208 of 2012) has categorically held that Adhikari Pariksha Certificate issued by the Gurukul Viswavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura, up to the year 2008 i.e. till it was recognized by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education as equivalent to High School, obtained with English as one of the subject, and passed in one year, is a valid qualification equivalent to High School, regardless of Gurukul having been declared a fake University by the UGC.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Urmila Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Deptt. ... on 5 November, 2024

This issue as to whether 'Adhikari Pariksha' certificate issued by Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura upto 2008 was equivalent to High School or not, was decided by Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Writ (A) Petition No. 48208 of 2012 (Dhanpal and others vs. State of U.P. and others). The relevant paragraph 54 of the said judgement dated 9.10.2013 passed in Writ (A) Petition No. 48208 of 2012 is quoted as under:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A Mathur - Full Document
1   2 Next