Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ANAUPCHARIK ANUDESHAK ASSOCIATION BADRANV BLOCK THRU' SECY. versus UNION OF INDIA THRU' SECY. DEPTT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Anaupcharik Anudeshak Association Badranv Block Thru' Secy. v. Union Of India Thru' Secy. Deptt. Of Human Resources & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 4814 of 2002 [2006] RD-AH 8033 (20 April 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

HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the newly launched scheme-vide Annexure-11 to the writ petition. Further it has been prayed that the members of the petitioner's association may be absorbed in the newly launched scheme or in any other educational institution.

The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the members of the petitioner's association were engaged in a Non-Formal Education Scheme and they were working but the said scheme has been abolished from 30.3.2001 and a new scheme known as Education Guarantee Scheme (in short EGS and alternative and Innovative Education (in short AIE) by which the altered Education Scheme, the members of the petitioner's association are being deprived from opportunity and absorption in the department of Basic Education governed by the State of U.P. Further it has been stated that the officers of non-formal education has already been absorbed by the Government in accordance with G.O. dated 18.3.2001 in Government Inter Colleges but the members of the petitioner's Association has been deprived from their absorption after abolition of non-formal Education Scheme. The petitioner's association requested the authorities to absorb the members of the petitioner's association but the respondents have not paid any heed as such the petitioner has approached this Court.

Notices were issued and the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. As such the writ petition is being disposed of finally. In the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner the various judgments have been annexed and the petitioners submit that the writ petition be disposed of in view of the directions given in various other writ petitions in which this Hon'ble Court has directed to consider the case of the members of the petitioner's association according to law without taking consideration of the age. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Writ petition No. 1040 of 1990 Ramphal and others Vs. State of Haryana and others.  The petitioner submits that the similar scheme in the education department also existed in the State of Haryana, which was named as Adult Education (Rural Functional Literacy Project)/ State Adult Education Programme). As the said scheme was abolished, the persons who were working in the said scheme had approached the Apex Court and the Apex Court while considering the grievance was pleased to pass an order on 10.11.1992 and has issued a direction to facilitate the absorption of the petitioners the Haryana Government shall relax the age bar and will consider the cases according to merit. In another judgment which has been passed by this Court a direction to this effect has also been issued to consider the cases of the petitioners who were working in the Anaupcharik Shiksha Scheme.

In view of the aforesaid fact the present writ petition is also disposed of with a direction to consider the cases of the petitioners taking into consideration the long period of working of the petitioners and while considering the cases, the age bar will not be taken into consideration. In case the petitioner's association submits a comprehensive representation annexing the documents showing therein that they were working in a particular scheme, the respondent no.3 will consider the same and shall pass a reasoned order according to law, if possible preferably within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

20.4.2006

V.Sri/-

W.P.No. 4814 of 2002


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.