Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.32 seconds)

Rajesh Rai vs State Of U.P. on 18 September, 1997

(9) Considering the aforesaid, all the grounds, which the appellants/writ petitioners have taken in the writ petition before the learned Writ Court, was considered by the Division Bench of this Court on 19.12.2017 in Rajesh Rai Vs. State of U.P. and 10 others (Supra). Further, Therefore, we are in full agreement with the reasoning assigned by the learned Writ Court while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order dated 7.1.2020.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - S K Phaujdar - Full Document

Committee Of Management, Gangadin Ram ... vs Deputy Director Of Education, Vth ... on 10 March, 2006

"Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that subsequent thereto the impugned report has been drawn up by the respondents whereby it has been indicated that there are only 29 sanctioned posts in the Institution. It is contended that once this Court in the aforesaid judgment of Committee of Management (supra) had already held that there are 76 posts consequently there was no occasion for the respondents to have again drawn up the impugned report dated 22.08.2017 and thus the said report runs contrary to the earlier judgment of this Court which has attained finality with the dismissal of the SLP and review petition and hence the present petition.
Allahabad High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 31 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Gopal Dubey vs District Inspector Of Schools, ... on 27 November, 1998

46. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court has clarified in Gopal Dubey (supra) that mere permission to run classes in a particular subject or permission to open additional sections in a particular class would not amount to creation of posts. Creation of posts has to be done under Section 9 of the Payment of Salary Act, 1971 for Higher Secondary Schools. Similarly, under Junior High School (Payment of Salary) Act, 1978 an institution first has to be given Maintenance Grant and salary of teachers has to be reimbursed from the Maintenance Grant by the Government after financial approval is given by the authorities concerned under Section 9 of the said Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 40 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

Paresh Yadav And 6 Ors. vs State Of U.P.& 6 Ors. on 8 August, 2014

54. The effect of an SLP being dismissed as withdrawn or being dismissed in limine has been considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Paresh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 2015 (Alld.) 10. The Full Bench of this Court after considering all the law on the subject has held that dismissal of Special Leave Petition as withdrawn or disposal of the same by making observations regarding the waiver of costs etc. would not amount to the judgment under appeal having merged with the judgment of the Supreme Court. Such judgment cannot be said to have attained finality, or that it was affirmed by the Supreme Court to become a binding precedent, preventing the reconsideration of the issue on merits by a competent Court."
Allahabad High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Rajesh Rai vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 16 July, 2019

(9) Considering the aforesaid, all the grounds, which the appellants/writ petitioners have taken in the writ petition before the learned Writ Court, was considered by the Division Bench of this Court on 19.12.2017 in Rajesh Rai Vs. State of U.P. and 10 others (Supra). Further, Therefore, we are in full agreement with the reasoning assigned by the learned Writ Court while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order dated 7.1.2020.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - S Agarwal - Full Document
1