Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.36 seconds)
Kanti Kumari @ Kanti Devi vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 1 March, 2019 cites

Kiran Kumari & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 6 December, 2017

13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on records. The law with regard to the appointment to the appellant vis-a-vis that of the respondent No. 7 need not be gone into in view of the various judicial pronouncements which have been brought to the fore. The law laid down in the case of Kiran Kumari (supra) goes to settle and negate the claim of the appellant and we are not persuaded to consider otherwise.
Patna High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - R Ranjan - Full Document

Vinod Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 25 October, 2018

12. It was thus submitted by the respondent No. 7, that the termination of respondent no.7 had been kept in abeyance by virtue of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 18123 of 2009 (Binod Kumar Yadav vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) which was disposed of on 15.03.2010 to take a decision in his matter in accordance with the directions of C.W.J.C. No. 6762 of 2009 and other analogous cases. The termination of respondent no.7 Patna High Court L.P.A No.400 of 2018 dt.01-03-2019 14/18 was to be kept in abeyance which would merge in the final order to be passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Bihar. However, no orders were passed pursuant to the direction dated 15.03.2010 which led the respondent No. 7 to file M.J.C. No. 805 of 2011 and ultimately vide memo no.3210 dated 27.04.2011 issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Bihar, the District Magistrate, Saran, was directed to take action in respect of his case. Thereafter, on 09.10.2010 vide Annexure-H, contained in memo No. 1421 the Block Development Officer, Garkha informed the Sarpanch, Gram Kutchery, Mahmada, that in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the appointment of Shri Binod Kumar Yadav was being affirmed and also directed that his appointment be kept untouched and appropriate instructions be issued accordingly. As such the Sarpanch convened a meeting dated 20.03.2011, in which the appointment of the petitioner was approved unanimously (Annexure-I). It was thus urged by the respondent no.7 that the issue must now be laid to rest as the appeal is wholly devoid of any merit and the points of law formulated by the appellant are contrary to the settled principal of law and also no relief can be granted in the prevailing facts and circumstances of the case. Patna High Court L.P.A No.400 of 2018 dt.01-03-2019
Patna High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - A K Upadhyay - Full Document

Mahabir Choudhary Etc vs State Of Bihar on 1 May, 1996

9. The respondent-State of Bihar has filed a counter affidavit contesting and opposing the appellant's claim. It has been submitted that so far as the appellant Kanti Kumari is concerned, the respondent has contended that the Appellant was a Madhyama qualified and had challenged the order of appointment of the respondent No. 7 before this Court which pertained to his appointment done prior to 31.01.2008, on which date, matriculation was the sole qualification. The case of the respondent vis-a-vis the appellant stood settled in view of the judgment delivered in C.W.J.C. No. 6762 of 2009 (Mahabir Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar) and also the Division Bench vide order dated 05.04.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1996 of 2010 (Kiran Kumari and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar). It was also contended by the respondent-State that the current scenario has changed and the Rules, 2007 has been repealed and replaced by the Secretary, Bihar Gram Kutchery (Employment, Service Conditions and Duties) Rule, 2014, with effect from date of its Notification i.e. 05.01.2015. In the said Rules, the minimum educational eligibility qualification under Rule 5(1) of the Rules, 2014 has been written as Intermediate(10+2) or equivalent qualification by the State Government and thus the appellant's claim is devoid of any merit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 14 - Full Document
1