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

2007 Supreme(All) 2676

SUDHIR AGARWAL, S.RAFAT ALAM
SHIV PRAKASH YADAV – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U P – Respondent


Advocates:
Ashok Khare, P.N.OZA, Yatindra,

S. RAFAT ALAM AND SUDHIR AGARWAL, JJ.

This intra court appeal arises out of the judgment of Honble single Judge dated 5. 10. 2005 dismisisng the Writ Petitions No. 42041 of 2000, 1187 of 2002 and 23630 of 2003 preferred by the appellant Shiv Prakash Yadav and others (hereinafter referred to as petitioners)-

2. The Special Appeals No. 1308 of 2005, 1410 of 2005 and 1411 of 2005 have been filed by the State of U. P. and others (hereinafter referred to as respondents) challenging the aforesaid judgment of Honble single Judge being aggrieved by the findings recorded by Honble single Judge on certain aspects particularly with reference to application of Section 3 (6) of U. P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Schedules Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 1994 Act) and despite the fact the writ petitions have been dismissed, the State of U. P. has prayed for setting aside judgment of the Honble single Judge.

3. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are that an advertisement was made on 31. 8. 1998 advertising 43 posts of Village Development Officer for which after holding written examination and interview, the final resu

































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