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

1998 Supreme(SC) 355

A.P.MISRA, K.VENKATASWAMI
Mohan Karan – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent


Judgment

K. Venkataswami, J.-The appellant, feeling aggrieved by the promo­tion given to the second respondent herein as Chief Town Planner. Bareilly, as per the order dated 6/7.7.92, moved the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, with a prayer for the issue of Writ of Certio­rari to quash the selection of the second respondent as Chief Town Planner (Mukhya Nagar Niyojak) and also for the issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider his case for the post of Chief Town Planner and to promote him to the said post with consequential benefits.

2. Short facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition No. 3849/92 before the High Court are the following:-

On the coming into force of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, the ‘Development Authorities’ were constituted for the de­clared development areas. One such Development Authority constituted in September, 1974 was the Lucknow Development Authority. The said Authority had the power to appoint officers and employees for the performance of functions entrusted to it under Section 5(2) of the 1973 Act. A proposal for creation of certain posts in the Planning Section of the Luck­now Development Authority wa





















































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