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

2006 Supreme(All) 3104

AJOY NATH RAY, ASHOK BHUSHAN
Hari Om Tatsat Brahma Shukla – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Radha Kant Ojha for the Appellant; S.P. Pandey, S.C., for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—This is an appeal against judgement and order dated 3.11.2006 passed by learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No. 5.

2. The respondent No. 5 has challenged the order passed by District Inspector of Schools dated 24.5.2006 by which order District Inspector of Schools directed that the appellant be given the charge of officiating Principal. The learned Single Judge in his judgement has noted the facts in details which need no repetition in our judgement.

3. A resolution was passed by the Committee of Management on 28.6.2003 appointing respondent No. 5 as officiating Principal. The said resolution was approved and respondent No. 5 started functioning as officiating Principal on 1.7.2003. One teacher who has earlier declined the post of officiating Principal Shri P. N. Mishra filed a writ petition claiming that although he had earlier declined but now he be given charge for the post of Principal. One more relevant facts to be noticed is that the appellant had retired on 30.6.2003 after attaining the age of 60 years, being a national awardee his claim for extension for a further period of two years was forwarded to the State Government w










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