Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.51 seconds)
Lal Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Ors. on 16 April, 2015 cites

Bipin Kumar Srivastava vs State Of U.P. & Others on 19 July, 2010

Another set of petitioners filed writ petition (S/S) no. 6213 of 2014 Vipin Kumar Srivastava and 9 others Vs. State of U.P. and others seeking regularization of their services as per the direction given by the Division Bench in special appeal no. 399 of 2011 vide judgment dated 20.3.2013 and also challenged the advertisement dated 1.11.2013 in which 50% of the vacancies were earmarked to be filled from the daily wagers/casual employees already working in the Corporation by giving them certain concession and the remaining 50% vacancies by direct recruitment and while granting time to the respondents for filing counter affidavit it was directed that the services of the petitioner shall not be disposed of and they shall be paid their wages.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - A Tandon - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar Srivastava And Others vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary ... on 1 March, 2011

So far as the direction given by the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 18.4.2011 and of the Division Bench on 20.3.2013 are concerned, there is no quarrel between the various contesting parties that it was the Board of Directors which alone was competent to take the decision in the matter of recruitment and that an appropriate Scheme or Regulation should have been framed by the Board of Directors for regularization of the several casual employees working under theU.P. State Warehousing Corporation. There is no dispute with the fact that the resolution of the Board of Directors was passed on 26.7.2013. It may be that in the affidavit filed alongwith the contempt petition only some of the papers relating to the said resolution were filed but thereafter when the petitioner has himself filed the complete resolution as Annexure 14 to the writ petition and this resolution refers to the Agenda no. 7 under which the decision was taken to constitute a three member Committee which would submit its recommendations to the Board of Directors regarding recruitment, validity of the resolution cannot be doubted. It has also been pointed out by the respondents that this resolution became the subject matter of challenge in writ petition no. 7149 of 2013 Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others and the prayer for interim relief has been rejected by the Court by order dated 29.11.2013 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). Thereupon the petitioner therein filed special appeal no. 852 of 2013 which has also been dismissed by order dated 11.12.2013. The Division Bench held as follows:
Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 27 - R Sharma - Full Document

Arvind Kumar Sinha S/O Shri Surendra ... vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary, ... on 20 September, 2007

Resolution dated 26.7.2013 was challenged in writ petition no. 67453 of 2013 (Amar Kumar Sinha Vs. State of U.P. and others) and the learned Single Judge observed that the Minister of the Department concerned was appointed as Chairman of the Corporation without observing the provisions of Section 20 sub section (2) of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962 but since the process of the recruitment was on and the examination was going to be held on the next day, the learned Single Judge declined to stay the forthcoming examination but restrained the respondents from proceedings in the matter of recruitment till further orders of the Court by its order dated 13.12.2013. The U.P. State Warehousing Corporation challenged the order dated 13.12.2013 in special appeal (D) no. 1302 of 2013 and the Division Bench finding no infirmity or illegality in the appointment of the Minister as Chairman of the Corporation by its order dated 19.12.2013 allowed the appeal and set aside the interim direction and held that as observed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order any appointments which are made through direct recruitment shall be subject to the result of the writ petition.
Allahabad High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - V K Shukla - Full Document

Prabodh Verma And Others, Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others. Etc on 27 July, 1984

There is another aspect of the matter. The selections have already been completed and the selected candidates have also been given appointment. These selections were never stayed in any of the writ petitions which were filed challenging the resolution dated 26.7.2013 or the selection through advertisement of the year 2013. Not one of the selected candidates has been made a party to the present writ petition nor his appointment challenged, therefore, in this view of the matter also no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this regard and the writ petition must be dismissed as bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties. The Supreme Court in the case of Prabodh Verma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (1984) 4 SCC 251 has held that at least one of the selected candidates ought to have been made a party to the writ petition in the selection challenged by the petitioner to succeed in getting the relief claimed in the writ petition. Paragraph 28 of the judgement reads as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 444 - D P Madon - Full Document
1