GOVIND MATHUR, CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
Ambrish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Dhari Singh, J
1. As common questions of law and facts arise in all writ petitions and as such all these writ petitions are being decided together by this common judgment and order.
2. In the instant bunch of writ petitions, all petitioners have assailed the validity of the Rule (14(1)(a) of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, (in short 1981 Rules') which provides the appointing authority to invite applications from candidates possessing prescribed training qualification from the district concerned.
3. Petitioners, inter alia, have also challenged the condition 6 (Kha) as contained in the guideline dated 26.12.2016 issued by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad to the extent that the candidates doing B.T.C. Training shall be allowed to apply in the district of their training alone in the first instance. They have also prayed that they may be permitted to appear in the counselling of the other district of their choice removing "District Preference".
4. Brief facts of the case are that vide Government Order No.3300/79-5-201604127/2013 dated 15.12.2016, a selection process for appointing 12,460 Assistant Teachers in the Primary Schoo
Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Admn.
Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal [(2008) 4 SCC 171 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 1005]
G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow
Govind A Mane v. State of Maharashtra; (2000) 4 SCC 200
Harshendra Choubissa v. State of Rajasthan
Inder Sen Mittal v. Housing Board
Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Others v. State of U.P. and Others
K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines [(2009) 5 SCC 515 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 57]
Kailash Chand Sharma V. State of Rajasthan
Madan Lal v. State of J&K [(1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 712 : (1995) 29 ATC 603]
Marripati Nagaraja v. Govt. of A.P. [(2007) 11 SCC 522 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 68]
Manish Kumar Sahi v. State of Bihar and others; (2010) 12 SCC 576
Radhey Shyam Singh v. Union of India; (1997) 1 SCC 60
State of U.P. Vs. Anant Kumar Tiwari; 2003 (3) AWC 2060
Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam
Balbir Kaur v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board
Chiranji Lal v. Union of India (AIR 1951 SC 41)
D. Sarojakumari v. K. Helen Thilakom and others; (2017) 9 SCC 478
Dhanjay Malik and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others; (2008) 4 SCC 171
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.