Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHRI DHURVA RAJ SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.& OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shri Dhurva Raj Singh v. State Of U.P.& Others - WRIT - A No. 19486 of 2001 [2006] RD-AH 6585 (24 March 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.30

Civil Misc. Writ petition No.19486 of 2001

Dhruv Raj Singh  Vs. State of U.P. and others.

Hon'ble V.C.Misra,J.

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel are present.    

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of clerk w.e.f. 1.4.1981 and he joined his service on 6.4.1981 in the college of respondent no.2-Kishan Uchattar Madhamic Vidiyalaya, Hundra, Kuwar Zila, Basti and he has worked till 4.4.1983, subsequently he was removed orally by the respondents from his service w.e.f. 5.4.1983.  The petitioner has submitted his representation before respondent no.1-District Inspector of Schools, Basti, which is still pending disposal.  It has further been stated that his services has been terminated without issuing a show cause notice with one month salary in lieu thereof and it was incumbent on respondent no.2 to have sought prior approval from respondent no.1 in terms of provisions of Section 16 G (1) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,1921.

I have looked into the record of the case and heard learned counsel for the parties at length.  No valid ground in support of the writ petition has been raised, the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merit.  I do not find it to be a fit case for exercising my extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.  The writ petition is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

However, in case, the representation has been filed by the petitioner before respondent no.1, which is still pending, the same may be disposed off by respondent no.1 in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.

Dated: 24.3.2006

pkc/6    


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.