Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)Rajesh Sagar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 2 December, 2019
4- Thereafter, the petitioner was given joining on 25.5.2015 on the post of clerk in the respondent no.4 institution, but the respondent no.3 has not allowed payment of salary to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed Writ-A No.50511 of 2017 (Ratnesh Kumar Sagar v. State of U.P. and others), which was disposed of by order dated 31.10.2017 directing the District Basic Education Officer, Mau, to consider and redress the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 passed an order dated 24.7.2018 mainly on the ground that the advertisement inviting application for recruitment was not properly made by the respondent no.4 and in the said advertisement the maximum age was published as 30 years, while the maximum age was enhanced by the State Government and there was ban on appointment and yet the approval was made by the District Basic Education Officer, Mau.
Vipin Kumar Maurya And 4Ors vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. on 16 January, 2019
10- That apart, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.31348 of 2013 (Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P. and others), reported in (2013) 7 ADJ 274, a Coordinate Bench of this Court considered the question of ban on appointment of Class III and Class IV staff in an educational institution and held as under:
Dr. Ramji Dwivedi vs State Of U. P. & Others on 26 April, 1983
The decisions relating to temporary ban imposed for appointment of teachers in the case of Dr. Ramji Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P., 1982 U.P.L.B.E.C 137 and the decision in the case of Durgesh Kumari (supra) therefore has to be read in that context where the State Government found justification for placing only a temporary ban keeping in view the new legislation that was to be introduced. Here there is no such occasion or any reason given in the government order dated 15.3.2012. No other legislation or any such provision has been pointed out that may be contemplated so as to justify such a ban.
Committee Of Management Kanya Junior ... vs Sachiv, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad ... on 21 August, 2006
In the background as indicated hereinabove there does not appear to be any application of mind by the State Government and which fact becomes more obvious when the State Government itself in respect of teachers immediately withdrew the said ban. The same logic applies to the other employees as well and it is for this reason that the court in the case of Committee of Management Vs. State of U.P., writ petition no. 24401 of 2013 held that the ban would not apply in relation to Class III appointments in an Intermediate College governed by the 1921 Act.
Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921
1