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

1992 Supreme(SC) 555

M.N.VENKATACHALIAH, N.P.SINGH, P.B.SAWANT
Madhyamik Siksha Parishad, U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Anil Kumar Mishra – Respondent


JUDGMENT

We have heard Mr. Sehgal for the appellants and Mr. Goel for the respondents. Special leave granted.

2. The appeal is by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, State of U.P., against the judgment dated 11-1-91 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petitions Nos. 10718/88, 11144/88, 20882/ 88, 48531,189, 18796/ 89, 26515/ 90 and 35389/91.

In the year 1986, appellant engaged the respodents for the work of preparing certificates to be issued by the appellant to the successful candidates at the examinations conducted by it. The certificates were printed forms and respondents were required to fill up the particulars such as the name of the candidate, name of the school, date of birth etc. in the appropriate space. The respondents were paid initially Rs. 12/ - for 100 certificates which was subsequently raised to Rs. 20/-. It would appear that there was a back-log of certificates to be cleared and the services of the respondents were engaged to clear that back-log on payment ad quantum. The backlog having been cleared and the preparation of the certificates in future having been computerised, the services of the respondents were not continued to be utilised. Res








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