ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
N.K. Mitra, CJ., D. K. Seth, J.
RAM DULARI DEVI - Appellant
Versus
JOINT DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION - Respondents
Special Appeal 253 Of 1997
Decided On : 09/07/1999
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against an order dated 4th March, 1977 dismissing the writ petition No. 7173 of 1997 moved by the petitioners appellants.
( 2 ) KASHI Balika Shiksha Niketan Uchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Shivpurwa, Varanasi, a recognised Junior High School was recognised as High School on 28/29th April, 1988. The regional Inspectress of Girls School (hereinafter referred to as rigs), Varanasi permitted introduction of Class-IX by an order dated 17th May, 1988. By an order passed on 13th november, 1991 the Institution was brought on the list of Institutions receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government and within the purview of the U. P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the payment of Salary Act), with effect from 1st April, 1991. The Management had forwarded a requisition to the RIGS for the post of Head Mistress and 5 Assistant Teachers on 5th April, 1990 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) for onward transmission to the U. P. Secondary Education service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission ). On account of continuance of the vacancies, the Management by its letter dated 19th May, 1990 (Annexure-2) addressed to the rigs sought permission for making adhoc appointment against the said vacancies. The same having not been responded to, the Management decided to advertise the vacancies and the said decision was communicated to the RIGS on 31st May, 1990 (Annexure-3) since submitted to the office of the RIGS on 2nd June, 1990. The vacancies were advertised in aaj on 3rd June, 1990 (Annexure-4 ). The Management had also called for applications from the Regional Employment exchange for candidates registered in the Employment Exchange, in pursuance whereof the employment Exchange, Varanasi had forwarded the names of several candidates. The petitioners had applied pursuant to the advertisement and were selected by the Selection Committee, who had prepared a report dated 25th June, 1990 (Annexure-5 ). The Committee of Management on 25th June, 1990 approved the said selection and appointment letters were issued on the same date and the petitioners joined on that date. The Management forwarded the papers relating to such appointments to the RIGS but the RIGS took no steps on the basis thereof. After the school was brought within the purview of Payment of Salaries Act, with effect from 1st April, 1991, through a letter dated 11th February, 1992 (Annexure-8), the RIGS called upon the Management to submit full details along with original papers pertaining to the employees of the Institution for verification. All papers were submitted to the RIGS on 24th March, 1992 (Annexure-9) by an order dated 26th March, 1992 (Annexure-10), the RIGS sanctioned Payment of Salary to the head Mistress and two Assistant Teachers. Thereupon the petitioners along with few others had approached this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17216 of 1992 challenging the order dated 26th March, 1992 On 4th May, 1992 (Annexure-11), this Court passed an interim order directing the RIGS to decide the petitioners representation dated 3rd April, 1992 by a reasoned order within two months from filing of the certified copy of the order along with the copy of the representation. Since the said representation was not decided and no counter affidavit was filed by an order dated 8th December, 1993 (Annexure-12), an interim mandamus was issued directing the RIGS to pay salary to the petitioners from the date of their respective appointment or show cause within the said period. On 16th December, 1993, Counter Affidavit (Annexure-13) was filed. By an order dated 8th May, 1995 (Annexure-14), the interim mandamus was confirmed. In compliance of the order dated 8th May, 1995, the Deputy Director of Education, Varanasi Region-II by an order dated 2nd June, 1995 (Annexure-15) directed payment of Salary to the petitioners. Pursuant to the said dir
Ashika Prasad Shukla v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and Anr.
Bhagawati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation
Ram Swarup v. State of Haryana and Ors.
Praveen Misra v. District Inspector of School
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. V. Karunakar
J.C. Yadav and Ors. v. State of Haryana
Ram Murti Chaturvedi v. Chancellor
Sardar Singh v. State of Punjab
Khagesh Kumar and Ors. v. Inspector General of Registration and Ors.
Nityanand Shukla v. Director of Education, U.P. Lucknow and Ors.
Harendra Kumar Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur and Ors.
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.