ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
N.K. Mitra, CJ., S.R. Singh, J.
MANSOOR ALI KHAN - Appellant
Versus
ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY - Respondents
Special Appeal 483 Of 1995
Decided On : 04/08/1999
( 1 ) THIS Special Appeal has been filed against, the judgment and order dated July 14. 1995 by which the petition filed by the appellant came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The relief claimed in the writ petition was that the orders contained in Annexures-4, 5 and 11 of the writ petition be quashed. Yet another relief was for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent not to interfere with the right of the appellant to continue as teacher/technical Asstt. in Geology section of the Z. H. Engineering College. Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh and not to appoint any other person in his place.
( 2 ) SKIPPING unnecessary details, the facts are that the appellant-a permanent Senior Technical assistant in the Applied Science Section of the Z. H. College of Engineering and Technology of aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh applied for and was appointed as Demonstrator in Al Fateh university. Tripoli. Libya under a contract entered into by him with the said University and as a preparatory to joining his duties as Demonstrator in Al Fateh University. Tripoli, Libya, he applied for and was granted extraordinary leave of two years by the respondent University w. e. f. 18. 4. 1979. It further transpires from the record that the appellant applied for extension of the leave for three years more from 18. 4. 1981 to 17. 4. 1984 on 4. 1. 1982. The Vice Chancellor, however, agreed to grant an extension in the leave granted to the appellant for a period of one year, i. e. , upto 17. 4. 1982. The appellant was informed accordingly vide letter dated September 12/23. 1981 which contained a word of caution that "no further extension in the period of your leave will be possible and you are advised to make preparations for resuming duly positively by 18. 4. 1982. " The appellant had. in the mean-time, signed a fresh contract with the Al Fateh university. Tripoli, Libya for two years and, therefore, requested for further extension of leave period but the request was nodded in refusal vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition and the appellant was called upon to report back for duty by May 15. 1982 in these words "resume duty by May 15 failing which you will be deemed to have vacated your post and cease to be in university service. " The joining time was, however, further extended upto 30th June 1982 vide annexure-5 which echoed the reiteration "resume duty by 1st July falling which you will be deemed to have vacated the post and ceased to be in University service from 18. 4. 1982. The appellant initially made certain representations/appeals and thereafter, took to filing a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11931 of 82 challenging the orders contained in annexures-4 and 5 of the writ petition. The Court. however, declined to interfere and dismissed the writ petition on 14. 10. 1983 holding that the petitioner had an alternative remedy to fall back upon, of preferring an appeal against the impugned order of termination of service. After an interregnum of some time, he filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16122 of 83. The writ petition escalated into dismissal vide order dated 27. 2. 1984 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench opted for dismissal of the petition on the ground that the appellant had not filed any representation before the Visitor/president of India to avail of the alternative remedy as per the observations made by the Court in the earlier writ petition which was dismissed on 14. 10. 1983. The appellant thereafter filed an appeal before the Executive Council and a representation before the Visitor. The representation came to be rejected by the Visitor vide order dated 5th September 1985 (Annexure-11 to the petition) under Section 13. 06 of the aligarh Muslim University Act. In rejecting the representation, the Visitor held as under : "according to information furnished by the University, the Leave Regulations were amended by the Executive Council in April. 198
State of Assam and others v. Akshay Kumar Deb
REFERRED TO : Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v . B.N. Ganguli
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.