SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(SC) 192

A.P.MISRA, K.VENKATASWAMI
Kamlesh Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Yogesh Kumar Gupta – Respondent


Judgment

Misra, J.-The question raised in this appeal is the interpretation of Section 13(4) of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) as amended in 1992.

2. The appellant interprets that the vacancies to be filled in under this sub-section are not only those which occur on account of death or resignation but would include any other vacancy occuring till another list is sent by the Commission under Section 13(2) of the Act. In other words, it would also include vacancies not advertised but occur­ing even for the subsequent academic year. In order to appreciate the question raised, the background and the facts would be useful, which are stated:

3. Prior to the aforesaid Act, the appointment to the post of teachers in the Non-Governmental Colleges affiliated to the various Universi­ties in the State of Uttar Pradesh was made by the Selection Committee of the Management of the concerned college. For various reasons, the said process was not found to be congenial and the aforesaid Act was enacted. Sections 12 to 14 of the Act contained procedure for appoint­ment of teachers as well as Principles. Section 16 provided for the appoin

















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top