Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M NEHRU SMARAK MADHYAMIK versus KAILAI THRU' MANAGER & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECRETARY EDUCATION AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C/M Nehru Smarak Madhyamik V. Kailai Thru' Manager & Anr. v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary Education And Others - WRIT - A No. 3804 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 1376 (25 January 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. Ran Vijai Singh,J.

This writ petition has been filed by the Committee of Management, Nehru Smarak Madhyamik Vidyalaya Kailai, district Firozabad and one Sri Satish Chandra,  claiming himself to be Principal of the College with the following prayer:

"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party  no.2 not to interfere  in the function of the petitioner No.2 as principal  in the Nehru Smarak Madhyamic Vidyalaya Kailai, district Firozabad.

(ii) Issue  a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus  commanding  the opposite party No.2 to issue  the registration form for Class 9th to the petitioner and the order and paper of attested signature of Prem Pal Singh.

(iii)  Any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances  of the case.

(iv) Award costs of the petition in favour of the petitioner ."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted  before this Court that the petitioner was duly selected on the post of Principal and  working as such. Respondent No.4 who was earlier working as  Headmaster and not  qualified has some  how managed the attestation of his signature by the  District Inspector of School and after attestation of signature he is creating  hindrance in functioning of College. He further submitted  that  for  redressal of his grievance a representation has been made by the Manager of the College to the Director of Education (Madhyamic) U.P. Lucknow on 30.12.2006 but no order has been passed. Hence the present writ petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the  State respondents. Counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead respondent No.5

Considering the facts and  circumstances of the case, it is provided that the petitioner may file a  fresh representation before respondent No.5 In case any such representation is filed, it may be decided  by respondent No.5  by a speaking order after hearing the petitioners  as well as State and Sri Prem Pal Singh,  if possible, within two months from the date of receipt of the representation. The petitioner will file certified copy of this order, other necessary documents and a duly stamped self-addressed envelope along with the representation. The respondent No.5 after taking decision will communicate the same to the petitioner.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

Dt.25.1.2007

Rkb.3804/07


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.