Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KAUSHAL NARAIN & OTHERS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kaushal Narain & Others v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 139 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 4578 (27 February 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 34

Special Appeal (139) of 2006

Kaushal Narain & Ors,.

Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors,.

*********

Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 7th November, 2005 of a learned Judge of this Court by which the writ petition filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 15th February, 2000 passed by the District Inspector of School (hereinafter referred to as the ''DIOS') rejecting the claim of the petitioners on the ground that neither the reservation quota had been taken into consideration while making the appointments and nor the procedure prescribed under law had been followed.

The Management of the Sri Saraswati Vidhyalaya Inter College, Hapur (hereinafter referred to as the ''College') made 16 appointments of Assistant Teachers in the L.T. grade. The DIOS did not grant financial approval as a result of which 12 teachers filed writ petition in this Court, being Writ Petition No. 20128 of 1992. Writ Petition No. 8587 of 1993 was subsequently filed by the petitioners/appellants. Writ Petition No. 20128 of 1992 filed by 12 teachers was dismissed by this Court on 25th February, 1996 with a further direction to the DIOS to make a fresh advertisement for appointments within a period of one month and in case the petitioners submitted applications then the experience gained by them while working in the College should also be taken note of. The writ petition filed by the present appellants, however, came up for disposal subsequently on 6th April, 1999 but surprisingly the earlier judgment of this Court dated 25th February, 1996 which was in respect of the same selection was not placed before the Court. The Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the DIOS to decide the question of grant of financial approval taking into consideration two aspects namely whether the papers with regard to the petitioners had been duly submitted and received by the DIOS and secondly whether there were vacancy available in the reserved quota. Subsequent to the passing of the order by this Court, the DIOS passed a detailed order dated 15th February, 2000 rejecting the claim of the petitioners/appellants by holding that neither the reservation quota had been taken into consideration and nor the procedure prescribed had been followed. The DIOS also noticed that the petitioners had not even applied pursuant to the subsequent advertisement.

The learned Judge found no error in the order of the DIOS particularly when fresh appointments had been made pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 25th February, 1996 in Writ Petition No. 20128 of 1992.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that when in respect of the same selection this Court had dismissed the petition on 25th February, 1996 in respect of 12 teachers who had filed the petition and had further directed for holding a selection after issuance of the fresh advertisement, the petitioners who claim to have been appointed in the same selection can have no better claim. This apart, the DIOS in his order dated 15th February, 2000 has indicated two reasons why the claims could be accepted. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out any infirmity in the two reasons given by the DIOS.

We, therefore, see no good reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Judge dismissing the petition. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.    

Date: 27.2.2006

NSC


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.