Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VICE CHANCELLOR, B.H.U. & ANOTHER versus DR SUSHILA RAIļ¦ ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vice Chancellor, B.H.U. & Another v. Dr Sushila Raiļ¦ Another - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 1511 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 12449 (27 July 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

CJ's Court

Special Appeal No.1511 of 2004

Vice Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and another

Vs.

Dr. Sushila Rai and another

Counsel for the appellants:        1.        Sri V.B.Singh, Sr. Advocate

       2.        Sri V.K. Upadhyay,

       3.        Sri Pankaj Naqvi

Counsel for the respondents:        1.        Smt. M.R. Chauhan,

       2.        Sri K.C. Sinha

~~~~~

Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J.

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Yog on the 20th of July, 2004 save, with respect, only to the extent indicated below.

Our order is to be read as a sequel to his Lordship's order. That a Library Attendant is needed where the writ petitioner-respondent was working earlier, is not disputed. The University has also made its intention clear that regular selection in that post will be made by them within six months; if the post exists well and good, if not, they will do the needful in that matter.

While considering the persons offering themselves for regular selection, the writ petitioner would be considered also and it is not disputed that she is qualified for being appointed to that post and position provided she proves herself to be the worthiest in open competition. In other words, her qualification for applying to be appointed as a Library Attendant was not disputed.

It appears that although the writ petitioner had worked de-facto for a long time, she has not currently been continuously working; for all periods, she has rendered actual service, she will be paid the money due, if not already paid. As from today, she will re-start working as Library Attendant in the manner she was earlier working, and will be paid henceforth as earlier, but such continuance will not, in any manner, give her any special entitlement or special weight for being selected in the open competition to be held. It is on record that she has had various recommendations from the Heads of Department earlier, and we have no reason to believe that henceforth her behaviour and rendering of service will be any different. If necessary, the necessary age relaxation will be granted to the writ petitioner.

With these orders and observations, the appeal is disposed of.  

Dt/-27.7.2006

RKK/-


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.