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

2008 Supreme(All) 185

ASHOK BHUSHAN
PRADEEP KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
R.K. Shukla for the Petitioner; Jitendra Pal Singh Chauhan and S.C. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri R.K. Shukla learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jitendra Pal Singh Chauhan learned Counsel appearing for respondents No. 6 and 7 and learned Standing Counsel.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in B.T.C. Correspondence Course in the year 2007 in pursuance of the Government order dated 27th December, 2004. It has further been prayed that respondents be commanded to take action against respondents No. 6 and 7 as they have deleted the name of the petitioner from the letter dated 24th July, 1995 and inserted the name of Dharmendra Kumar to get training of first year B.T.C. Correspondence Course.

3. The facts of the case, as emerge from pleadings of the parties, are; the petitioner was appointed as untrained teacher on 24th August, 1992 in a primary institution, namely, Bhootpurva Sainik Shree Kalluwala Adarsh Vidya Mandir. The State Government decided to impart training to untrained teachers, who were working in recognised primary/junior high school by giving two years B.T.C. Correspondence Course training. Petitioner’s case is that in purs





















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