Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.31 seconds)Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 13 October, 2022
41. When we examine the facts of the present case in light of the law laid down by this Court in the above mentioned cases, it appears that the respondents claim that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade in subject Civics and the minimum educational qualification for appointment to a post of Assistant Teacher in subject Civics includes a B.Ed. degree. Upon verification from the University, the petitioner's B.Ed. degree has been found to be forged the respondents contend that it makes the petitioner's appointment null and void. The petitioner claims that he had not claimed that he possessed a B.Ed. degree and B.Ed. was not an essential qualification and it was merely a preferential qualification. In the letter dated 04.03.1993 issued by the District Inspector of Schools granting approval to the petitioner's appointment, his qualification is written as "B.Sc. Agriculture, B.Ed." and the same qualification is mentioned in the petitioner's service book. In case the petitioner had not claimed possessing a B.Ed. degree, there was no occasion for the authorities to include the aforesaid qualification in his service record. Further, had the authorities had erroneously mentioned this qualification on their own, it was open for the petitioner to point out the error and to get it rectified, but the petitioner did not do so. Even if the petitioner's contention that B.Ed. is not an essential qualification, is accepted, he admits that it was a preferential qualification and, therefore, even as per the petitioner, B.Ed. was not an irrelevant qualification which would have no effect on the selections, as the candidates having preferential qualification are given a preference over other candidates who possess the essential qualification but do not possess the preferential qualification.
Meena Devi vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 13 May, 2022
In Reena Devi versus State of U.P. and 4 others: 2019 6 AWC 6355 All, a coordinate Bench of this Court referred to various precedents and concluded that: -
Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Asha Saxena vs S.K. Chaudhari And Ors. on 19 December, 1990
In Asha Saxena (Dr.) v. S.K. Chaudhari: 1990 SCC OnLine All 602 = (1991) 1 UPLBEC 250, the first question involved was about the inter se seniority of the three Lecturers. The next question was as to whether the provisions of clause 3(1)(bb) of Chapter II of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act are retrospective in its operation or not, on which the Full Bench held that the provisions of clause 3(1)(bb) of Chapter II are not retrospective in operation. In light of the aforesaid answer, the Full Bench held that the controversy regarding seniority of the three lecturers was determined by the Managing Committee on 29.04.1976 and the seniority list had remained in existence since then. The Full Bench further held that the law is well settled that the court will not interfere with a seniority list which had remained in existence for a long time and which had become final. The Management had determined the seniority on 29.04.1976 after affording opportunity to Dr. Asha Saxena. She did not file any appeal against the decision of the Committee of Management even though an appeal may have been preferred. Objections by Dr. Asha Saxena had been filed after a lapse of nearly 15 years. She did not raise an objection that seniority list was not prepared every year. The only objection raised was that she did not know about the insertion of provisions of Section 3(1)(bb) in Chapter II and she filed the objections after coming to know of the aforesaid provision. In the aforesaid factual background, the Full Bench held that as the seniority list had been existing since the year 1975-1976, this Court was not prepared to quash the seniority list after a lapse of nearly 15 years. The Full Bench decision given in the aforesaid background is not applicable for adjudication fo the dispute involved in the present case.
Rajeev Kumar Jauhari Son Of Surendra ... vs State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 29 November, 2006
In Rajeev Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 2000 SCC OnLine All 973 = 2001 All LJ 485, the question was whether the petitioner was qualified to be appointed as Assistant Teacher (Art). The DIOS had rejected the claim of the petitioner as he was not 'Trained' as provided in Appendix 'A' to Chapter II of the Regulations. This Court held that 'Trained' was not an essential qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Art) for teaching classes IX and X. 'Trained' was a desirable qualification for the post. There is a difference in desirable or preferential qualification and essential qualification. If a candidate does not possess essential qualification, then he is ineligible for the post. Since 'Trained' was only a preferential qualification the petitioner could not be held ineligible, on this ground. The question commission of fraud by submission of a forged marks-sheet was not involved in this case and, therefore, this judgment is not relevant for adjudication of the controversy involved in the present case.
Amrendra Pratap Singh vs Tej Bahadur Prajapati & Ors on 21 November, 2003
"A judicial decision is an authority for what it actually decides and not for what can be read into it by implication or by assigning an assumed intention to the judges, and inferring from it a proposition of law which the judges have not specifically laid down in the pronouncement.