Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.24 seconds)
Smt. Amita Tripathi (Tewari) vs The Director Of Education, Allahabad, ... on 28 February, 2018 cites

Shri Prakash Dwivedi Son Of Shiv Pratap ... vs District Inspector Of Schools, U.P. ... on 27 May, 2005

6. No doubt, the decision in the case of Ashika Prasad Shukla (supra) settles that law that ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment in a short term vacancy made prior to judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 03.01.1994 in the case of K.N.Dwivedi Vs. District Inspector of Schools, (1994) UPLBEC 461, which stands supported by judgment dated 12.07.1994 in the case of Radha Raizada (supra), would not be invalid merely because the vacancy was not notified in two prominent newspapers. But, at the same time, it was pointed out that only a short term vacancy was covered by the Second Removal of Difficulties Order and only against such vacancies.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 10 - T Agarwala - Full Document

Smt. Ram Dulari Devi And Ors. vs Joint Director Of Education And Ors. on 7 September, 1999

The reliance upon the Judgment in the case of Ashika Prasad Shukla (supra) and the case of Smt. Ram Dulari Devi & others (supra) by the Counsel for the petitioner is also incorrect in view of the facts of the present case as clear from the discussions made in Julfikar Husain Ansari (supra) and Surendra Kumar Pandey (supra). As discussed above, the Judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Radha Raizada does not protects the ad hoc appointments on substantive post, which have been made without following the procedure of appointment given in the First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. The Judgment of Aashika Prasad Shukla only saves the irregular appointment under the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 and therefore, the petitioner's reliance on the same is misconceived.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 4 - D K Seth - Full Document

Tridip Kumar Dingal And Ors vs State Of West Bengal And Ors on 4 November, 2008

Now considering the Case Laws relied upon by the Counsels by the parties, it is to be observed that the reliance of the Counsel for the petitioner on the Judgment of Tridip Kumar Dingal & others (supra) relates to a case where the irregular selection were continued for long time and therefore the candidates who were selected, appointed and were working continuously for a long time were not disturbed by the Apex Court on the ground that they have acquired sufficient experience of the job. In the present case, the petitioner had worked from 1982 to 1989 in the Institution and thereafter on the basis of interim order dated 08.04.1997, he was permitted to be paid her salary of the post w.e.f., 13th March, 1995 to 31st March 1997 and thereafter, month to month salary was directed to be paid to her and she was directed to sign the attendance register maintained at the Institution for teachers. This order was passed by this Court because the Counter Affidavit was not filed by the respondents within the time granted by this Court. After the interim order dated 08.04.1997, a Recall Application was filed by the respondent no.5 on 20.05.1997 and this Court recalled the interim order dated 08.04.1997 by its order dated 25.07.2014. In the meantime, the petitioner did not turned up in the College and alleging that the Management did not permit her to sign the register, claims to have marked her attendance in the office of District Inspector of Schools. However, no application was filed by the petitioner, before this Court complaining that in pursuance of the interim order dated 08.04.1997, she is not being permitted by the Management to put her signature on the attendance register nor she filed any contempt application. This conduct of the petitioner shows that she enjoyed the salary as per the interim order dated 08.04.1997 till it was recalled by this Court vide its order dated 25.07.2014. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has informed that he has preferred a Special Appeal against the order dated 25.07.2014 of this Court, which is pending and no interim order has been passed therein in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the Case Law cited by the petitioner is distinguishable on facts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 248 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Surendra Kumar Pandey S/O Sri Ram Narain ... vs District Inspector Of Schools, Finance ... on 28 March, 2007

The reliance upon the Judgment in the case of Ashika Prasad Shukla (supra) and the case of Smt. Ram Dulari Devi & others (supra) by the Counsel for the petitioner is also incorrect in view of the facts of the present case as clear from the discussions made in Julfikar Husain Ansari (supra) and Surendra Kumar Pandey (supra). As discussed above, the Judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Radha Raizada does not protects the ad hoc appointments on substantive post, which have been made without following the procedure of appointment given in the First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. The Judgment of Aashika Prasad Shukla only saves the irregular appointment under the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 and therefore, the petitioner's reliance on the same is misconceived.
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - S Yadav - Full Document
1   2 Next