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

2010 Supreme(All) 3875

SUDHIR AGARWAL
FAHEEM HAIDER – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Prabhakar Awasthi for the Petitioner; M.A. Qadir, Mohd. Waris, T.I. Khan, J.H. Khan, C.S.C. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Both these writ petitions are against the same order and, therefore, as agreed by learned counsel for the parties the same are being heard and decided finally under the Rules of this Court at this stage.

2. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Sri J.H. Khan, Advocate for respondent No. 5, Sri M.A. Qadir, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No. 6 and perused the record.

3. In Writ Petition No. 19505 of 2008, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.3.2008 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, J.P. Nagar holding that the direct appointment of petitioner on the post of Lecturer (Civics) in I.M. Inter College, Amroha, J.P. Nagar is not valid since that post ought to have been filled in by promotion of respondent No. 5, hence it has revoked its approval dated 19.9.2005 whereby the petitioner’s appointment on the post of Lecturer (Civics) was made and has directed for promotion of respondent No. 5 on the post of Lecturer (Civics) which shall be effective from the date of his taking over charge.

4. Sri Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted tha













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