Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM SURAT MAURYA & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Surat Maurya & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 485 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9631 (16 May 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.34

Special Appeal No.485 of  2006

Ram Surat Maurya & Anr.

Vs.

State of U.P. & Ors.

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

This special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order  dated 17/4/2006 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 20481/2006.

The said petition was filed against the order dated 13/3/2006 passed by the Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pustahar, U.P., Lucknow cancelling the promotion of the petitioners/appellants and directing their reversion.

The learned Judge dismissed the said petition as it was found as a fact that the petitioners/appellants did not possess the minimum typing speed that was desired under the relevant rules, therefore they were not qualified and eligible.    

We have heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that an identical matter was dismissed by us by means of judgment and order  dated 15/5/2006 in Special Appeal No. 469/2006. We called for the records of the said special appeal.

A perusal of this Special Appeal indicates that it was directed against the judgment and order  dated 18/4/2006 which was filed by one Shivaji against the order dated 13/3/2006 passed by the Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pustahar, U.P., Lucknow setting aside the promotion from the post of Class IV employee to the post of Junior Clerk on the ground that the petitioners/appellants did not possess the minimum speed of typing i.e. 25 Words per minute. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Judge by a detailed order dated 18/4/2006. The learned Judge held that the condition of minimum typing speed for being promoted as a Clerk cum Typist was a mandatory condition which could not be diluted and relaxed and thus the promotion order was a clear act of traveling beyond the powers vested in the authority under the rules.    

The special appeal filed by Shivaji against the said judgment and order dated 18/4/2006 was dismissed by us on 15/5/2006.

In view of the aforesaid this special appeal is also liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

16/5/2006

SB


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.