J. J. MUNIR
Udai Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of petition against financial sanction refusal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. background and appointment process of class iv employees. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. role of educational authorities in managing staffing. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. judicial interventions and prior writ petitions. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. arguments regarding sanctioned strength and appointment legitimacy. (Para 14 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. legal positioning regarding the grounds of appeal and previous orders affecting the case. (Para 15) |
| 7. the decision related to how changes in recruitment policies affect ongoing selection processes. (Para 16) |
| 8. assessment of state regulations affecting recruitment. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 9. court's reasoning for intervention in administrative decisions. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 10. the importance of prior selection process laws. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 11. legal standing of outsourcing decisions in recruitment. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 12. final decisions on the validity of regulations and their enforcement. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 13. consequences of policy decisions on existing recruitment processes. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 14. final order issued by the court. (Para 44 , 46) |
JUDGM
Abhay Nandan Inter College v. State of U.P.
Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji
Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri Sevadas Vidyamandir High School
Jitendra Kumar v. State of Punjab
Miss Neelim Shangla v. State of Haryana
Mohindhr Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others
N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission
P Mahendran v. State of Karnataka
Ramji Dwivedi [Ramji Dwivedi v. State of U.P.
Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India
State of Bihar v. Mithilesh Kumar
State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha
State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Principal, Abhay Nandan Inter College and others
The court upheld that the appointments made before changes in recruitment policy must be considered valid under the laws in effect at that time, emphasizing the integrity of the selection process.
Regulation 101 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 applies to minority institutions, mandating prior approval from the DIOS for non-teaching staff appointments to ensure compliance with stat....
An appointment without prior approval under Section 101 of the Regulation would be a nullity in so far as it purports to bind the State Government to grant aid to the institution concerned for paymen....
A candidate has a right to be considered in light of existing Rules which implies Rules in force as on date of consideration.
Post of Clerk – Selection process - Appointment of petitioner/respondent, if allowed, will amount allowing a person to be appointed without following procedure of law as selection process of petition....
Administrative orders have prospective operation unless indicated otherwise, and cogent reasons are required to prevent completion of the selection process.
Candidates participating in a recruitment process do not have a legal right to appointment if the selection process is found to be flawed and thus invalid.
Point of law: If the District Basic Education Officer does not communicate his decision within one month from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4), he shall be deemed to have accorded a....
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.