Search by Keywords x
contact us contact us | home help



 Welcome Guest | Apr 20 2014
 
Home Skip Navigation Links
Search by Database Expand Search by Database
Skip Navigation Links
Subject Modules Expand Subject Modules
Skip Navigation Links
State Modules Expand State Modules
Skip Navigation Links
Legal Focus Expand Legal Focus
 

Login

  

Free Demo

Database Updates
Search by Database
Resources
Subject Modules

Database updates


Judgments

Mallamma (Dead) by Lrs. vs National Insurance Company Limited and others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 07 Apr 2014]

Sudesh Dogra vs Union of India and others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 07 Apr 2014]

Kamlakar Dagdu Narkhade vs (1) K. N. Bhise Arts and Commerce College; (2) State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary to Government of Maharashtra Department of Higher and Technical Education; (3) Director of Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Pune; (4) Divisional Joint Director, Higher Education (Grants), Solapur Division, Solapur; (5) Accountant General (A & E), Mumbai; (6) Auditor, Higher Education, Kolhapur  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 07 Apr 2014]

Haran Chandra Halder vs Union of India and others  [CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, 07 Apr 2014]

Prasanta Das vs State of West Bengal and others  [CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, 07 Apr 2014]

Nutan Thakur vs Election Commission of India, Nirwachan Sadan, New Delhi and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 07 Apr 2014]

Anardan vs State of Uttar Pradesh Through Secretary Home Department Lucknow and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 04 Apr 2014]

Babita Saxena vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 04 Apr 2014]
Service - Selection for the post principal - Joining - Legality - Petitioner was placed at serial no. 2 in terms of select list notified for the purpose of selection to the post of principal in Govt. aided intermediate college - Petitioner filed instant petition seeking a direction to respondents to ensure his joining on the said post in terms of order dt.14-6-2012 passed by Dy. Secretary State Secondary Education Services Selection Board (Board) - Whether petitioner was entitled to be appointed as principal as claimed -

Held, there was some litigation with regard to selection for the post and matter went up to SC in SLP no. 19335-336/2003 which was ultimately decided by judgment dt.16-5-2008 in favour of the Board - After SC judgment, select panel was verified by Board through its correspondence dt.7-7-2008 with the DIOS and the Board directed the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) to ensure joining of selected candidate - On 5-9-2011 candidate at serial no.1 of select panel dt.11-9-2002 submitted her application in writing expressing her unwillingness to join on the post -In fact stand of Board was that the second selection of 2011 was advertised under the requisition received from the DIOS but Board had itself been corresponding with the DIOS to give joining to the selected candidate of the select list dt.11-9-2002 under the advertisement no. 1 of 2002 and had informed the DIOS through the letter dt.14-6-2012 that only if the candidate at sl. no. 1 or sl. no. 2 was not available for appointment, advertisement no. 1 of 2011 might be operated - In view of very fair and just proposal made by State and as well as Management of the College that petitioner would be allowed joining at the earliest whenever she presents herself in the College to give her joining, it was directed that petitioner should present herself on 9-4-2014 before the respondent no. 4 (Management) and respondent no. 4 should give her joining on the post of Principal forthwith and report to DIOS on the same date - DIOS was also directed to ensure that petitioner was given joining by respondent no. 4 on 9-4-2014 itself - Petition allowed.


(1) Sangam Das Gautam and others; (2) Irshad Ahmad and others; (3) Devnath Tiwari and others; (4) Pramod Kumar Maurya; (5) Lalit Singh; (6) Vrijendra Pratap Singh; (7) Hari Prasad Singh and others; (8) Lal Jwaleshwari Pratap Bahadur Singh; (9) Pradeep Kumar Pandey and others; (10) Suresh Pratap Singh and others vs State of Uttar Pradesh Through Secretary Department of Home Civil Sectt. and others; (2) State of Uttar Pradesh Through District Magistrate Distt. Barabanki and others; (3)  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 04 Apr 2014]

Sanjeev Kumar vs HRTC and another  [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT, 04 Apr 2014]

Management of Cossipore Tea Estate Represented by its Manager, Kolkata vs (1) Bagan Panchayat of Cossipore Tea Estate Represented by its President, Bagan Panchayat of Cossipore Tea Estate, Cachar; (2) Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Cachar; (3) Bharatiya Cha Mazdoor Sangha, Cachar  [GAUHATI HIGH COURT, 04 Apr 2014]

Association of Civil Engineers of Madhya Pradesh (Bhopal Unit) vs State of Madhya Pradesh and another  [MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 04 Apr 2014]

Kailash Chandra Saboo and others vs Madhya Pradesh State Warehousing Corpn and others  [MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 04 Apr 2014]

(1) M. Jayasankar; (2) K. Anumuthu; (3) A. Mathiyazhagan; (4) D. Geetha vs (1) Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai; (2) Managing Director, T.N.H.B. Annasalai, Chennai; (3) Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Secretary and Personal Officer, Chennai; (4) Executive Engineer and Administration Officer, Krishnagiri District  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 04 Apr 2014]
Service - Temporary or adhoc appointment - Regularisation - Denial - Entitlement of - Petitioners were appointed on on daily wages basis sponsored through employment exchange, filed instant petitions for calling for the file of respondent (Board) resolution dt.30-4-2012 and to quash the same and further sought for issuance of an order in directing the respondents to reappoint and regularise their services as Technical Assistants in Board - Petitioners contended that they made repeated requests for their absorption as Technical Assistant but there was no reply and indeed, they made last representation dt.16-5-2011 to respondent no. 2 and that Board Meeting dt.30-4-2012, accorded its approval to call for the list from the Exchange and appoint 15 Assistant Engineers, 15 Technical Assistants and one Surveyor and further Board issued call letters to candidates fixing the date of interview on 1-9-2012 - Whether petitioner were entitled to regularisation of their services as claimed -

Held, fact that petitioners' engagement as Technical Assistants, through Letter dt.29-11-1989, were 'purely on daily wages basis and the same were neither regular nor temporary' and further, it was made clear that they should not claim the continuance of permanent on the job, as a matter of right, comes to an inescapable conclusion that pleas of petitioners to reappoint and regularise their services as Technical Assistants in the Board, were not per se maintainable before Court, in the eye of law and as such, Court negatives their pleas -Plea of petitioners that Board passed a resolution dt.30-4-2012 to fill up the vacancies of 15 Assistant Engineers, 15 Technical Assistants and 1 Land Surveyor, by ignoring their representations dt.16-5-2011, could not be sustained because of the reason that in absence of number of Technical Assistants in Board, Board found it difficult to execute their work promptly and with a view to fill up the vacancies to avoid unnecessary delay in executing the works smoothly and timely, the Resolution was passed - Petitions dismissed.


Shiv Murat (Dead) by Lrs. vs Satyawati and others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 04 Apr 2014]

(1) Hitendra Singh S/o Bhupendra Singh and others; (2) Pramodini Ambadas Lad; (3) Parikshit Vinayak Shingrup and others; (4) Prashant Dinkarrao Peshattiwar and others vs (1) Dr. P. D. Krishi Vidyapeeth by Reg. and others; (2) Chancellor Dr. P. D. K. Vidyapeeth and others; (3) Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth and others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 04 Apr 2014]

(1) R. K. Sharma; (2) Om Parkash Sharma; (3) R. K. Bhatia; (4) Surinder Singh; (5) Rajesh Kumar Gulia; (6) Prashant Sharma; (7) Rajesh Kumar Gulia; (8) Suraj Bhan; (9) Ranbir Singh Dhull; (10) Vijay Laxmi; (11) Rajesh Arya vs (1) State of Haryana and others; (2) Union of India and others  [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, 04 Apr 2014]

Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs National Green Tribunal  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 03 Apr 2014]

Brahm Dutt vs Anti-Corruption Bureau, DoV, GNCTD  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 03 Apr 2014]

Rajendra Kumar vs Urban Development Department, GNCTD  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 03 Apr 2014]

M. K. Gupta vs Transport Department Delhi  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 03 Apr 2014]

Bhram Pal Singh vs Education Department, GNCTD  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 03 Apr 2014]

Ram Raksha Shaw vs Steel Authority of India Limited and others  [JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, 03 Apr 2014]

Vijay Shankar Pandey vs Union of India and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 03 Apr 2014]

Om Prakash Rai vs State of Uttar Pradesh Through Secretary and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 03 Apr 2014]
Administrative - Practice & Procedure - Threat perception - Security and protection - Gunner facility - Withdrawal - Justifiability - Petitioner's son was murdered, in which petitioner was an eye-witness - For that incident FIR was lodged and upon investigation, charge-sheet was filed - Special Operation Group (SOG) arrested certain persons on 30-9-2012 and during interrogation, it was found that those persons were planning to kill the petitioner - Another FIR was lodged and based on that information, security was provided to petitioner from October, 2012 which continued till December, 2013, when it was withdrawn - Aggrieved petitioner by the withdrawal of security filed instant petition praying for restoration of gunner facility, which was provided by way of security measure - Petitioner contended that threat perception was still existing and as per Govt. orders issued from time to time, it was the obligation of State to protect its citizens and provide security -

Held, what constitute threat perception was not indicated in Govt. order - A threat perception was a question of fact which could only be assessed by State Investigating Agencies and it was not the domain of Court to consider whether a threat perception exists in favour of a particular person or not - Individual security could only be provided in exceptional circumstances - But where a person indulges in criminal activities and thereby enhances the threat to his life, in such a situation, said person was alone responsible and thus, State in such a situation would not come forward and provide security - It was not desirable to provide personal security to such persons because such persons would threaten others and indulge in criminal activities unhindered with the aid of protection provided to them by State - In instant case, initially there existed a threat perception in favour of petitioner - State provided him security which continued for a considerable period of time but from December 2013 onwards, the security was withdrawn for reasons disclosed in the sealed cover - Contents indicated by State in the sealed cover and for reasons indicated therein, State was justified in the facts and circumstances, in withdrawing the security - Perusal of Govt. of 2001, Court found that State Govt. had emphasized that no security should be provided to a person, who was indulging in criminal activities and against whom, it was feared that the provision of security to them could be misused - Petitioner was indulging in criminal activities and in the light of Govt. order of 2001 and the observations in 2008 Indlaw ALL 733, it was not desirable to provide personal security to petitioner - Respondents were justified in downgrading the security and providing security only for the purpose of taking the petitioner from his residence to Court and back - There was no reason to interfere in the action of State - District Level Committee was directed to review the threat perception on a month to month basis and thereafter take further action of providing security - Petition dismissed.




Copyright © 1997-2014 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer