MARKANDEY KATJU
Kumari Kusum Rawat – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
M. Katju, J.
In this case on 1-5-1992 Hon'ble M.P. Singh, J. granted the Respondents eight weeks time to file counter affidavit, and directed the petition to be listed for admission on 10-7-1992.
2. Subsequently on 9-6-1992 an application was filed before me praying that an interim direction be issued to the Respondent for continuing the Petitioner as Lecturer in Zoology in H. N.B. Garhwal University, Garhwal. In para 8 of the affidavit in support of the application it has been alleged that when the case was taken up on 1-5-1992 by Hon'ble M.P. Singh, J. the counsel for the Petitioner could not appear and press the prayer for interim relief It has been alleged in para 5 of the affidavit that in a large number of similar petitions (referred to in paragraphs 13 to 15 of the writ petition) interim orders have been passed. In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the affidavit it is alleged that the Petitioner has come to know that the Commission is going to finalize regular selection by the end of June, 1992 and some other person will be selected in place of the Petitioner, and hence the urgency in the matter.
3. On 9-6-92 I directed this application to be put up on 11-6-92 and further direct
Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
D.S. Nakara and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI)
Olga Tellis and Others Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Another Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.