Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.39 seconds)Section 3 in Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 [Entire Act]
Reserve Bank Of India vs Peerless General Finance & Investment ... on 22 January, 1987
33. We are mindful of the principle that the Court should examine every word of a statute in its context and must use context in its widest sense. We are also in acquaintance with observations of this Court in Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., 1987 SCR (2) 1 where Chinnappa Reddy, J. noting the importance of the context in which every word is used in the matter of interpretation of statutes held thus:
Suresh Dubey vs District Inspector Of Schools And Ors. on 4 November, 2003
In Suresh Dubey v. District Inspector of Schools and Others (2004) 2 UPLBEC 1876, this Court has already relied upon the judgment of the Court in the Bahadur Singh Gaur v. D. I.O.S., Kanpur and Others 1995 All LJ 1292, in holding it is date of substantive appointment which is relevant date and approval would be the date of substantive appointment. The joining since is dependent upon mood and discretion of the Committee of Management and discretion that by itself cannot be a ground to place a person above the seniority to the person who has been given joining late by the Committee of Management vide paragraph 5 of the judgment, the Court has held thus:
Banolata Mohapatra vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 May, 1999
14. The controversy qua forenoon and afternoon joining was dealt with by the Supreme court in the case of Banolat Mohapatra v. State of Orissa and Others (1999) 4 SCC 618. In the said case issue had arisen for seniority claim for the post of lecturer in a college, the appellant therein claimed before the Supreme Court that both he and respondent no. 4 joined the institution on the same day while appellant joined in the forenoon and respondent no. 4 joined in the afternoon and further letter of appointment to the appellant was sent earlier than respondent no. 4. The Supreme Court rejected the argument and held that these issues of seniority will not depend upon the joining time in the forenoon and afternoon or that who got appointment order earlier. The Court while examining the records found that appellant was placing reliance upon as annexure A dated 15.12.1979 which showed appellant was appointed against first post of Lecturer, Economic whereas respondent no. 4 was appointed against second post but in the counter affidavit, the copy of resolution that was filed which showed that appellant was appointed against second post and respondent no. 4 was against first post of lecturer. The Supreme Court further examined that original records were produced before the High Court and High Court found that Minister of Education accepted the resolution of Governing Body holding that appellant was shown senior to respondent no. 4 was post of lectures, the Court therefore found no reason to found ratio of judgment of High Court in holding fourth respondent senior to appellant. Vide paragraphs 5 and 6 the Court held thus:
Badri Narain Singh vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation, ... on 31 August, 2010
In Prabhu Narain Singh v. Deputy Director of Education, Varanasi 1977 ALR 391, it has been held that a person does not acquire the status of a teacher unless the approval of his appointment is granted by the District Inspector of Schools and the mere fact that he was working in the institution will not confer the status of a teacher.
1