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

2011 Supreme(Mad) 3145

K.CHANDRU
B. Balakrishna – Appellant
Versus
Chairman-cum-Managing Director TANGEDCO – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:D. Nellaiappan, Advocate. For the Respondents: -----

Judgment :-

1. The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition challenging the communication dated 24.06.2011 sent by the second respondent. In the impugned communication, the petitioner, who, was working as a Section Officer in the respondent organization, was informed that LLB degree obtained by him from one Bharatiya Shiksha Parishad/Lucknow cannot be recognised as a valid law degree for the purpose of considering his case as Legal Officer.

2. Reference was made on the Regulation 94 of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations wherein it is stated that the Legal Officer must have a degree in law obtained from an University recognised by University Grants Commission and it was also informed that UGC by its letter dated 25.03.2010 has stated that the Bharatiya Shiksha Parishad/Lucknow is neither a University nor a deemed University and the degrees or certificates awarded by the said Institution are not valid for any employment and academic purpose.

3. The petitioner has now challenged the said communication and contended that the Bharatiya Shiksha Parisha/Lucknow has been conducting several courses in law and the High Court of Allahabad in a decision in C.M






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