Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAMADHIN versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ramadhin v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 9756 of 2002 [2007] RD-AH 7409 (23 April 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 Vineet Saran, J.

No one is present on behalf of the petitioner to press this writ petition even in the revised list. Learned Standing Counsel is, however, present on behalf of the respondents.  

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in default. Interim order, if there be any, shall stand discharged.

dt.23.4.2007

ps

w.p.9435.02

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

No one is present on behalf of the petitioner to press this writ petition even in the revised list. Learned Standing Counsel is, however, present on behalf of the respondents.

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in default. Interim order, if there be any, shall stand discharged.

dt.23.4.2007

ps

w.p.9655.02

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

No one is present on behalf of the petitioner to press this writ petition even in the revised list.

I have heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. In my view, the prayer made in this writ petition does not deserve to be granted.

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

dt.23.4.2007

ps

w.p.9659.02

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

No one is present on behalf of the petitioner to press this writ petition even in the revised list.

I have heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. In my view, the prayer made in this writ petition does not deserve to be granted.

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

dt.23.4.2007

ps

w.p.10122.02

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

No one is present on behalf of the petitioner to press this writ petition even in the revised list.

I have heard learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri S.K. Rai, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents and have perused the record.

Sri S.K. Rai has submitted that the petitioner is an employee of the private cooperative society and thus this writ petition would not be maintainable.

Having heard learned counsel for the respondents and on perusal of record, in my view, on the facts and circumstances of the case,  the prayer made in this writ petition does not deserve to be granted.

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

dt.23.4.2007

ps

w.p.1684.03

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

No one is present on behalf of the petitioner to press this writ petition even in the revised list.

I have heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. In my view, the prayer made in this writ petition does not deserve to be granted.

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

dt.23.4.2007

ps

w.p.7922.03

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

No one is present on behalf of the petitioner to press this writ petition even in the revised list.

I have heard learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Vipul Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. In my view, the prayer made in this writ petition does not deserve to be granted.

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

dt.23.4.2007

ps

w.p.8692.03

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

I have perused the office report dated 24.3.2007.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to take fresh steps to serve the respondent no. 6 within one week. The office shall send notice to the said respondent fixing a date immediately after two months.

List immediately after two months.  

dt.23.4.2007

ps

w.p.31229.03

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

No one is present on behalf of the petitioner to press this writ petition even in the revised list.

I have heard learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Tarun Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. In my view, the prayer made in this writ petition does not deserve to be granted.

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

dt.23.4.2007

ps

w.p.39499.03

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

No one is present on behalf of the petitioner to press this writ petition even in the revised list.

I have heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. In my view, the prayer made in this writ petition does not deserve to be granted.

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

dt.23.4.2007

ps

w.p.40058.2000

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

On 17.4.2007 this Court had directed this writ petition to be listed after two weeks. It appears that this writ petition has wrongly been listed today.

List in the next cause list.  

dt.23.4.2007

ps

w.p.26851.01

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

No one is present on behalf of the petitioner to press this writ petition even in the revised list.

I have heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. In my view, the prayer made in this writ petition does not deserve to be granted.

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

dt.23.4.2007

ps

w.p.33231.01

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

No one is present on behalf of the petitioner to press this writ petition even in the revised list. Learned Standing Counsel is, however, present on behalf of the respondents.

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in default. Interim order, if there be any, shall stand discharged.  

dt.23.4.2007

ps

w.p.33528.01

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

No one is present on behalf of the petitioner to press this writ petition even in the revised list.

I have heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. In my view, the prayer made in this writ petition does not deserve to be granted.

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

dt.23.4.2007

ps

w.p.281.02

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

The case of the petitioner is that by order dated 1.8.1996, he was appointed on fixed salary of Rs. 1200/- per month till regularly selected candidate by the Selection Committee was given appointment. Thereafter, by order dated 16.1.1998, the order of appointment had been withdrawn. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 13972 of 1998, which was disposed of  with the direction to the respondent no. 3 to pass fresh orders on his representation. By means of the impugned order dated 13.11.2001 passed by the respondent no. 3, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner has thus filed this writ petition with the prayer for quashing the order dated 13.11.2001 and for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to work as Driver and pay him his salary.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was given appointment as Driver, though on consolidated salary, but the same was till regularly selected Driver was given appointment. It has been stated that no selection of Driver has yet been held and the respondents have cancelled the appointment of the petitioner only to accommodate some persons of their choice.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find any infirmity with the order impugned in this writ petition. However, since the petitioner has worked on fixed salary on adhoc basis for more than a year, it is provided that as and when the selection for the post of Driver is held, the case of the petitioner shall be duly considered, in accordance with law, and in case if any Driver is to be kept on adhoc basis, no such appointment shall be made without considering the case of the petitioner, on merits.

Subject to the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

dt.23.4.2007

ps

w.p.9756.02


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.