Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)
Kumud Kumar Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 March, 2024 cites

Ravishankar @ Ravi Choubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 2023

In this backdrop, it cannot be said that a holder of a Class-III or Class-IV and Group-C or Group-D post having been appointed as in the present case by the authority conferred by the Legislature, which has resulted in promulgation of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1997 and the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Appointment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2001, as the case may be, cannot be said to be not holder of the "Public Office" and, therefore, reliance placed by Shri Pushpendra Dubey on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this High Court in Writ Petition No.6608/2020 (Ravishankar Chouksey versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Others) decided on 19.7.2021 (supra) is misplaced because merely a person is a Class-IV or Class-III employee, will not be excluded from the definition of the "Public Office".
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - D K Paliwal - Full Document

B. Srinivasa Reddy vs Karnataka Urban Water Supply And ... on 3 April, 2006

8. Before entering into the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the other petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents, it will be necessary to clarify that the appointment of a Samvida Shala Shikshak is under the statutory provisions, namely, the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1997, which were repealed in the year 2001 and replaced with another set of statutory Rules, namely, the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Appointment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2001 and, therefore, the submission made by Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned Senior Counsel, who has left the Court in between and the reliance placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Retired Armed Forces Medical Association & Others versus Union of India & Others (supra) is not made out from record and since the appointments of the private respondents are under the statutory rules, therefore, the judgment of B.Srinivasa Reddy versus Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Association & Others (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case, therefore, challenge to the maintainability of the writ only on the ground of appointment being made as a stop gap arrangement is not available inasmuch as appointment of the private respondents is neither stop gap arrangement nor the appointments have been made until further orders and infact the appointments are supposed to have been made under the provisions of the statutory rules.
Karnataka High Court Cites 69 - Cited by 212 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Retd. Armed Forces Medical Association ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 October, 2006

8. Before entering into the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the other petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents, it will be necessary to clarify that the appointment of a Samvida Shala Shikshak is under the statutory provisions, namely, the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1997, which were repealed in the year 2001 and replaced with another set of statutory Rules, namely, the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Appointment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2001 and, therefore, the submission made by Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned Senior Counsel, who has left the Court in between and the reliance placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Retired Armed Forces Medical Association & Others versus Union of India & Others (supra) is not made out from record and since the appointments of the private respondents are under the statutory rules, therefore, the judgment of B.Srinivasa Reddy versus Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Association & Others (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case, therefore, challenge to the maintainability of the writ only on the ground of appointment being made as a stop gap arrangement is not available inasmuch as appointment of the private respondents is neither stop gap arrangement nor the appointments have been made until further orders and infact the appointments are supposed to have been made under the provisions of the statutory rules.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

Rajesh Awasthi vs Nand Lal Jaiswal & Ors on 19 October, 2012

The Apex Court in Rajesh Awasthi versus Nand Lal Jaiswal & Others (2013) 1 SCC 501 has categorically noted that a writ of quo warranto will lie when appointment is made contrary to the statutory provisions. In the present case, since appointment has been made contrary to the statutory provisions, writ petition is maintainable challenging the such illegal appointments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 103 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Hasham Abbas Sayyad vs Usman Abbas Sayyad & Ors on 12 December, 2006

27. Thus, the appeal would have been a futile exercise because the Collector himself had become a party to the lis by forwarding an application to the concerned authority asking them to examine and issue appointment order and, therefore, the only option available to the aggrieved party, was that of revision and not of appeal. Hence, the judgment of the Apex Courrt in Hasham Abbas Sayyad versus Usman Abbas Sayyad & Others (supra) relied on by Shri Kabeer Paul saying that appeal was provided and revision was not maintainable, will have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 214 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Smt. Monika Waghmare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 October, 2019

14. Shri Kabeer Paul places reliance on Paragraph Nos.34 & 36 of the judgment in Monika Waghmare versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (supra) to suggest that in Dr.Raghubir Saran versus State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 1, the Apex Court deprecated the practice of casting aspersions on a witness or any other person not before him affects the character of such person or witness. The Court expressed its concern that such remarks may affect the reputation or career of such person. In this backdrop, Shri Kabeer Paul submits that without affording opportunity of hearing, the Commissioner should not have passed the impugned order directing registration of the FIR.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - S Paul - Full Document

Harish Chandra Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 September, 2014

26. A plain and simple reading of the order passed by the Commissioner dated 27.5.2019 makes it clear that the Collector himself was a party to the illegal appointment though the Commissioner has slyly given clean chit to the Collector for the reasons best known to him inasmuch it is mentioned in the said order of the Commissioner that the Collector had forwarded an application to the concerned authority of the Janpad Panchayat to grant appointment to certain private respondents and, therefore, once the Collector was party to the menace, which was sown by the Collector, Sidhi and which was perpetuated by the other Officials of the Government or the Janpad Panchayat then appeal to Collector against the acts of the Collector will be like an appeal against the order of the caesar to caesar's wife. Hence, Smt.Shakuntala Pandey rightly did not Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time: 11-03- 2024 18:42:33 20 prefer appeal before the Collector though it could have been maintainable in terms of the Division Bench Judgment of this High Court in Harish Chandra Yadav versus State of Madhya Pradesh (supra).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 Next