Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)
State Of U.P. And Ors. vs Rosalia Minj Sohanta (Smt.) And Anr. on 2 May, 2003 cites

Union Of India & Anr vs Ravi Shankar & Anr on 24 February, 1998

In the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Ravi Shanker and Anr., (supra), the Apex Court has held that the degree of Vaidya Visharad awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, cannot be held to be a recognised qualification under the Recruitment Rules. The said decision is of no assistance to the appellants in as much as in the present case, there is no material on record to show as to what was the prescribed qualification for the appointment of Assistant Teacher in Primary School in the year 1973. The respondent No. 1 had been appointed on the said post in the 1973 and she contended to work till 1992 as trained Teacher and the salary in that grade had also been paid, thus, it cannot be said that she did not possess the requisite qualifications.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - M Srinivasan - Full Document

Chandigarh Administration vs Laxman Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. on 12 September, 1997

5. According to him, the Government Order 21.10.1994, did not have any retrospective effect and all those untrained Teachers who have completed 10 years service or were going to attain the age of superannuation within 2 years, were to be treated as trained Teachers after a committee constituted under the aforesaid Government Order examined their cases. Thus, the Single Judge was not justified in directing the respondent No, 1 to be treated as trained Teacher bye-passing the Government Order dated 21.10.1994. He further submitted that the learned Judge had granted the relief, which was not even claimed by the respondent No. 1. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandigarh Administration v. Laxman Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 326.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Smt. Santosh Yadav vs State Of Haryana And Others on 2 May, 1996

6. Shri R.K. Ojha learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, however, submitted that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the School on 17.7.1973. She possessed the certificate of Diploma in Education from Pune University, which is a recognised University by the University Grant Commission and therefore, its Diploma is recognised all over India. He further submitted that as far back in the year 1986, a doubt was expressed on the question as to whether the diploma granted by the Pune University is recognised or not and the Director of Education, U.P., Allahabad, vide letter dated 21,8.1989 had informed the Principal of the School relying upon the Government Order dated 29.8.1966 that any degree or diploma given by the University in India which is a recognised University by the 'University Grant Commission, is recognised for appointment in the State. Thus, he submitted that the respondent No. 1 had rightly been appointed as a trained Teacher in the School and therefore, treating her as untrained Teacher was wholly illegal. In any event, he submitted that in view of the Government Order dated 21.10.1994, which provided for treating those untrained Assistant Teachers who had been working for more than 10 years to be trained Teachers, the judgment and order dated 16.2.2000 calls for no interference. He relied upon the decision the case of Smt. Santosh Yadav v. State of Haryana, reported in (1997) 1 UPLBEC 259.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 19 - M M Punchhi - Full Document
1