Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.30 seconds)Dr. Shashi Prabha Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2015
In
the matter of Abha Pandey Vs. State of M.P. &
Others, W.P. No.11283/2017 decided on
28.09.2017., this Court opined as under:
Smt. Ankita Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 31 October, 2017
"Learned counsel for respondent
no.5 has pointed out that Coordinate
Bench in similar matter W.P.
No.11413/2017 (Smt Anita Mishra v.
State of Madhya Pradesh) held that
petitioner's substantive post is
Adhyapaka, and she was given
State Of Haryana vs S.M. Sharma And Ors on 20 April, 1993
Curtains on this aspect are finally
drawn by Supreme Court in AIR 1993
SC 2273 (State of Haryana v. S.M.
Sharma and Others); the relevant
portion reads as under"
V.B.Singh vs Secretary The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 October, 2016
In 2016(3)
MPLJ 152 (V.B. Singh v. State of M.P.),
this Court came to hold that on the basis
of alleged violation of administrative
instructions, no enforceable right is
being created to continue on officiating
basis. Accordingly, in my view petitioner
has no legal vested or constitutional
right to continue on officiating basis. No
case is made out for interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution."
Smt. Neelam Bajpai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 December, 2016
(17/04/2018)
All these petitions are decided by the
common order as common question of law and facts is
involved in the matter. For the sake of brevity, the facts in
W.P. No.14592/2016 (Smt. Neelam Bajpai Vs. State of
M.P. and Others) has been reproduced as under.
Smt. Sandhya Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 September, 2017
The point involve in
this case has already been decided by this Court in the
case of Smt. Sandhya Mishra Vs. State of M.P. and
Others passed in W.P. No.8458/2013 on 01.09.2017 and
in the said writ petition, this Court has held that the
petitioner is holding an additional charge of the post of
Warden and, therefore, she cannot claim any right to
remain in the said post. The para 4 and 5 of the said
judgment is read as under.
1