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

2009 Supreme(All) 3798

SUDHIR AGARWAL
SUGHAR SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Rakesh Bahadur, Praful Bahadur for the Petitioner; A.K. Saxena, Gautam Baghel for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Rakesh Bahadur, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Sri Gautam Baghel, Advocate for respondent No. 6.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11/12.11.2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) whereby, in accordance with Chapter III, Regulation 2(2) of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the “1921 Act”) the promotion of respondent No. 6 on class-IV post has been approved.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 6 was appointed as a Class-IV employee on 20.1.2000 when one Sri Shiv Shanker Verma was the President of the Committee of Management. The respondent No. 6 was his cousin (Mamera Bhai) and thus his appointment was invalid from the very inception in view of Regulation 22 read with Regulation 4, Chapter-III of the Regulations framed under 1921 Act which prohibits the appointment of a relative of any member of the Committee of Management in the College.

4. It is not in dispute that since the date of appointment, on Class-IV















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