Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.16 seconds)

Laxmi Chand Son Of Daya Ram, Sher Singh ... vs State Of U.P. on 23 December, 2005

"13. In the present case, what we have to examine  is as to whether what is provided, is a mere preference or   a   first   priority.   In   the   event,   the   rule   provides   a   mere   preference,   it   will   mean   that   the   candidates   concerned   will have to have equal marks to begin with and then one   amongst so many, will be given a preference. As against   that, if there is an en bloc priority given to a category,   that will have to be preferred irrespective of the marks   obtained.   The   word   'Variyata'   has   been   defined   in   the   Oxford   Hindi   into   English   Dictionary,   as   priority   or  precedence. Besides from the two Government Circulars,   which   are   referred   to   above   and   which   were   issued   subsequently,   i.e,   one   dated   21.11.2005   and   the   latter   dated 24.4.2006, the intention has been further clarified.   As   we   have   noted,   the   Government   Circular   dated   21.11.2005,   gives   the   clarification   specifically   stating   that   an   Instructor/Supervisor,   who   has   worked   in   the   non­formal education Scheme, if available and if having   the   other   conditions   of   eligibility,   and   if   falls   in   the   prescribed category of reservation, will be appointed, even   if  he is  having   less  number of marks. The  Government   Circular   of   24.4.2006,   clearly   states   that   amongst   the   Instructors/Supervisors, one who has put in longer years   of   service,   will   be   preferred.   In   the   earlier   Government   Circular   dated   10.10.2005,   those   who   had   passed   B.Ed./L.T., were to be given the preference while stating   that the word used was Adhimanyata (preference). That   clause  has  been  removed  and  the terms used  in Clause   no.4,   are   Prathama   Variyata,   which   will   mean   'first   3 priority' or 'precedence'. The provisions contained in this   Clause,   when   read   with   the   clarification   dated   21.11.2005,   clearly   lead   to   the   inference   that   the   Instructors/Supervisors,   who   have   worked   in   the   non­ formal education Scheme ought to be preferred en bloc   with   priority   over   the   others,   if   such   persons   are  available.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 22 - I Murtaza - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Anr vs Om Prakash & Ors on 21 July, 2006

15.   As   stated   above,   when   we  see  the   text   of  the  rule,   purpose   of   the   Scheme   and   the   Government   Circulars,   they make it clear that the Instructors/Supervisors ought   to   be   preferred   en   bloc.   It   is   a   golden   rule   of   interpretation that the Rule is to be read as it is and in   the context in which it is framed. Thus, for example, in   the context of taxation it has been laid down by the Apex  Court   in  The   Commissioner   of   Sales   Tax,   Uttar   Pradesh, Lucknow Vs. M/s. Parson Tools and Plants,   Kanpur, reported at AIR 1975 SC 1039, that where   the   legislature   clearly   declares   its   intent   in   the   scheme   and language of a statute, it is the duty of the Court to   give full effect to the same. This has to be done without   engrafting, adding or implying anything therein, which   are   not   congenial   to   or   consistent   with   such   expressed   intent of the law­giver.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 53 - H K Sema - Full Document
1