State of Uttar Pradesh vs Principal Abhay Nandan Inter College

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 556

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, M. M. SUNDRESH
State of Uttar Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Principal Abhay Nandan Inter College – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR Mr. Kameshwar Nath Mishra, Adv. Mr.Raghwendra Singh, Sr. Adv./Adv. Gen. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Dl. ASG Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR Ms. Kirti Khangarot, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr.Rajat Singh, AOR Mr. Samarth Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Shilpa Singh, AOR Mr. E.C. Vidya Sagar, AOR Mr. Anilendra Kant Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Kumar Rajeev, Adv. Mr. N.D. Arya, Adv. Mr. M.P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Keshav Rai, Adv. Mr. Amrendra Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Narender Kumar Verma, AOR Mr. Praveen Agrawal, AOR Mr. V.K. Shukla, Sr. Adv. Ms. Parul Shukla, AOR Mr. Saket Gogia, Adv. Mr. Dhawesh Pahuja, Adv. Mr. Prateek Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Gupta, AOR Mr. D.K. Garg, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Garg, AOR Mr. Abhay Kumar, AOR Mr. Rajat Khattry, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Iyer, Adv. Mr. Sriharsh Nahush Bundela, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kumar Milind, Adv. Mr. Shagun Ruhil, Adv. Mr. Vishal Nautiyal, Adv. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Udayaditya Banerjee, AOR Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, AOR Mr. Danish Zubair Khan, AOR Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Naveen Kumar Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Udayan Pratap Singh, Adv. Ms. Saroj Tripathi, AOR Mr. Kabir Dixit, AOR Mr. Anand Varma, AOR Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, AOR Mr. R.K. Singh Kaosik, Adv. Mr. Umesh Dubey, Adv. Mr. D.N. Dubey, Adv. Mr. Alok Pandey, Adv. Mr. Sudhir S Rawat, Adv. Dr. Bheem Pratap Singh, Adv. Ms. Divya Roy, AOR

JUDGMENT :

M.M. SUNDRESH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. We have also perused the documents filed and carefully considered the affidavits of the parties along with the written arguments filed.

3. Appeals have been preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh laying a challenge to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 19.11.2018 holding that Regulation 101 framed under The Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as amended is unconstitutional. Incidentally, few other appeals were disposed of by taking note of the aforesaid decision. Applications have also been filed to intervene/implead by such of those persons who are also appointed by these institutions as Class “IV” employees. Thus, appositely all these appeals are disposed of by a common order.

THE ACT:-

4. The Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is of vintage origin having its existence prior to independence and surviving to date. The object of the enactment is to regulate and supervise high schools and intermediate education. Sub-Section 4 of Section 9 of the Act speaks of the powers of the State Government and facilitates the State Government to pass appropriat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(SC) 556

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, M. M. SUNDRESHState of Uttar Pradesh – AppellantVersusPrincipal Abhay Nandan Inter College – Respondent

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, M. M. SUNDRESH
State of Uttar Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Principal Abhay Nandan Inter College – Respondent