Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VIPIN KUMAR PANDEY versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vipin Kumar Pandey v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 32017 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 12301 (18 July 2007)

 

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'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner.  No notice is issued to the respondents No.4 & 5 in view of the order which is being passed.  Liberty is reserved to the respondents No. 4 & 5 to move an application for clarification, variation and modification  of  the order if they feel so aggrieved.  Learned standing counsel appears for respondents No. 1 to 3.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 13.6.2007 as well as the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 10.7.2007.  The petitioner's case in the writ petition is that a post of Lecturer (Hindi) fell vacant on 30.6.2007 for which resolution has been passed  by the Committee of Management for promoting Brahm Pal Singh Harnautia as Scheduled Caste candidate. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is senior most teacher eligible for promotion on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) but the Committee of Management has wrongly treated the post of Lecturer (Hindi) to be reserved for Schedule Caste candidate. He submits that the requisition of one post of Lecturer for filling by Scheduled Caste candidate out of five posts was forwarded by the District Inspector of Schools on 14.2.2007 hence the post of Lecturer (Hindi) was not required to be filled up by Scheduled Caste category candidate.  The resolution of the Committee of Management has been forwarded to the Regional Committee headed by the Regional Joint Director of Education.  It is open for the petitioner to make detailed representation to the Joint Director of Education raising his grievances which are sought to be raised by the petitioner in this writ petition.  

In view of above the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed representation to the respondent no. 2 who shall consider and take appropriate decision on the representation of the petitioner.  the Joint Director of Education may also hear the other  affected parties.

With the above observations the writ petition is disposed of.      

D/-18.7.2007

SCS/32017


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.