Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.33 seconds)Section 5 in Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 [Entire Act]
Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921
Section 6 in Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 [Entire Act]
Ram Swaroop Kainthola vs Director Of Education (Secondary), ... on 20 November, 1997
The second judgment relied on by Learned Counsel for the petitioner in the case of Ram Swaroop Kainthola v. Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Allahabad and Ors. (supa) in which dispute of seniority arose between two teachers. Both were working in the Junior High School. After upgradation, three posts of L.T. Grade teachers were created on 9.7.1989. The respondent in that case was promoted on 26.4.1990 on one of the vacancies. The petitioner of that case was granted L.T. Grade after completion of ten years' service in C.T. Grade on 9.1.1995. The respondent No. 4 was regularised as L.T. Grade w.e.f. 23.4.1994. In the said case, the petitioner was given L.T. Grade by virtue of completion of ten years' service in C.T. Grade. In the aforesaid background, the respondent No. 4 was held senior. In paragraph 9 of the above judgment, following was laid down
The U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982
Chhotey Lal Arya Son Of Late Shri Budh ... vs The State Of U.P. Through The Secretary ... on 16 August, 2005
21. The last judgment relied by Learned Counsel for the petitioner in the case of Chhote Lal (supra), the seniority between the petitioner and respondent in that case was on the basis that the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis in L.T. Grade on 15 2.1982, whereas the contesting respondent was appointed in L.T. Grade directly on 13.3.1986. The petitioner was treated to be substantively appointed Lecturer w.e.f. 6.4.1991 by virtue of provisions of Section 331A of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. This Court held that regularisation of the petitioner as L.T. Grade teacher shall relate back to as ad-hoc appointment by virtue of which the petitioner was declared senior. Following was laid down in paragraph 16 of the aforesaid judgment.
Panchami Singh vs Junior Director Of Education And Ors. on 19 December, 2002
In the case of Panchami Singh v. Junior Director of Education Gorakhpur and Ors. (supra) both the petitioner and contesting respondent were promoted on 7.9.1993 as L.T. Grade teachers. The seniority of both of them were to be determined by Regulation 3(bb). The date of appointment of respondent in that case was 9.11.1972 (untrained) and substantive appointment w.e.f. 1.7.1975, whereas the date of substantive appointment of the petitioner was found at 1.8.1977 hence, the Joint Director of Education declared the respondent senior to the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed and the said determination was upheld. Following observations were made in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said judgment:
1