advocatemmmohan
Orissa High Court
Service matter – appointment of trained teachers in the vacancies in the post of primary teachers in the state of Bihar = several trained teachers for a direction upon the State of Bihar to appoint them in the vacancies in the post of primary teachers in the State of Bihar. = Be that as it may, in the event, some discrepancies had crept in the final select list, the individual grievances contained various anomalies, which it is difficult for us to unravel. Accordingly, we modify our order dated 13th October, 2011, and allow the applicants to approach the High Court for redressal of their grievances. We also direct that the applications, special leave petitions and writ petitions filed before us be treated as withdrawn, with liberty to the parties to approach the High Court individually or otherwise, for relief, if any, but without, in any way, affecting the appointments of those teachers who have already been appointed against the vacant 34,540 posts and are working. We have been informed during the hearing that about 2413 posts out of the 34,540 posts were still left to be filled up. All the applications, Special Leave Petitions and Writ Petitions are, therefore, disposed of in the light of the aforesaid observations. We make it clear that none of the persons appointed out of the 34,540 vacancies should be disturbed in any way, but the question of filling up the balance vacancies may be taken into consideration, while disposing of the applications in question.
Reported in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40581 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.26824 OF 2012 YASHWANT SINGH & ORS. … PETITIONERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. … RESPONDENTS WITH I.A.Nos. 668, 669, 671, 674, 675, 676, 677, 679, 680, … Continue reading
whereby the writ petition preferred by Geomin Minerals & Marketing (P) Ltd. was allowed and the recommendation made by the State Government dated 9th January, 2009 in favour of POSCO India (P) Ltd. was set aside with a direction to the State Government to take a fresh decision in terms of order dated 27th September, 2007 passed by the Revisional Authority in Revision Application File No.22 (41)/2007RC1 by giving the Geomin Minerals & Marketing (P) Ltd. the preferential right of consideration. The Division Bench further observed that in the event the State Government decides to invoke the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the “MM(D&R) Act”) , “special reasons” for the same in terms of guidelines dated 24th June, 2009 issued by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India be recorded in writing.= It is well settled that no applicant has statutory or fundamental right to obtain prospecting licence or a mining lease.- In view of the finding as recorded above, we are of the view that the High Court committed a grave error of law in deciding the case on merits and deciding the question of legality of the recommendation made by the State Government. In fact they should have left the matter to the Central Government to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law instead of entertaining a premature writ petition. The State Government by its recommendation having forwarded the tabulated chart showing inter se merit of each applicant, it was not for the High Court to sit in appeal to decide who amongst all is more meritorious and is entitled for preferential right. 36. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment dated 14th July, 2010 passed by the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court and remit the matter to the Central Government to consider the question of approval under Section 5(1) taking into consideration the recommendations made by the State Government. While deciding the question it will keep in mind the objections raised by the parties as noticed in the preceding paragraphs. It is expected that the decision will be taken on an early date and shall be communicated to the State Government. The appeals are allowed with the aforesaid observation and direction, but there shall be no order as to costs.
Page 1REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NO. 4561 OF 2013(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.31593 OF 2010)GEOMIN MINERALS & MARKETING (P) LTD. … APPELLANTVERUSSTATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. … RESPONDENTSWITHCIVIL APPEAL NO. 4562 OF 2013(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.31957 OF 2010)STATE OF ORISSA … APPELLANTVERUSGEOMIN MINERALS & MARKETING (P) LTD. … RESPONDENTSAND ORS.WITHCIVIL APPEAL NO. 4563 OF 2013(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.32040 OF 2010)POSCO INDIA PVT. LTD. … APPELLANTVERUSGEOMIN MINERALS & MARKETING (P) LTDAND ORS. … RESPONDENTSJ U D G M E N TSUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.Leave granted. 1Page 22. These appeals by special leave have beenpreferred against the order of Division Bench ofOrissa High Court, Cuttack dated 14th July, 2010 inW.P. (C) No.23 of 2009 whereby the writ petitionpreferred by Geomin … Continue reading
Ex-cadre post – promotion etc., – Tribunal, therefore, refused the prayer of the respondent for permitting him to work in the Administrative Department as OSDcum-Deputy Director (Steel). – However, as regards the promotional prospect the Tribunal held as under :- “As regards his promotional prospects it is clear from the documents at Annexure 1 and 2 that the applicant was termed as a hold of ex-cadre post only after his actual appointment and no mention was made therein regarding his appointment against an ex-cadre post. We, therefore, suggest that the Directorate of Geology may consider the case of the applicant for career advancement vis-à- vis other comparable Class-I Engineers in service appointed in 1984 in the erstwhile Directorate of Mining an Geology (and later the Directorate of Geology) on the same footing as if he was appointed at par with other Engineers in 1984 and treating him as the junior most of that batch and consider him for promotion from the date his junior was so considered from time to time.”- we are of the view that the finding arrived at by the High Court that the post of Ore Engineer was for the first time treated as ex cadre post in the year 2005, is absolutely perverse and erroneous.- where the Members of the State Administrative Services made a claim that a number of ex-cadre or temporary posts which were temporary in nature and some of them 19Page 20 were created under the State Enactments which required their manning by IAS Officers. It was contended that on account of failure of the Central Government to timely review the cadre strength as statutorily required, the promotion of the promotees got inordinately delayed and they lost their seniority in the promoted cadre. The rule does not confer any right on the petitioners to seek a Mandamus for en cadring those ex-cadre/temporary posts. Any such Mandamus would run counter to the statutory provisions governing the creation of cadre and fixation of cadre strength which was held that asking the State or the Central Government for en cadrement of the ex cadre/temporary posts will amount to asking the Government to create more posts.- In the background of the law well settled by this Court, we are of the definite opinion that the direction issued by the Tribunal and the order of the High Court affirming the order of the Tribunal is wholly without jurisdiction. The impugned orders passed by the Tribunal as also by the High Court are, therefore, liable to be set aside. 26. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the orders passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.97 of 2009 and the impugned order passed by the High Court.
Page 1 [ REPORTABLE] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1967 OF 2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20635 of 2011) State of Orissa & Ors. …Appellants Vs. Sri Jagabandhu Panda …Respondent WITH C.A.No.1968 OF 2013 arising out of SLP(Civil) No.8676/2013 J U D G M E … Continue reading
service matter – Respondent No.4, Rajeswar Panda filed an appeal before the Director, Higher Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, stating that he was appointed as a lecturer in History in Sushree Devi Women’s College, Aul, Kendrapara after due selection but he was not allowed to discharge his duties because the Governing Body of the College tried to accommodate the appellant in his place. The appeal was disposed of by the Director by an ex parte order vide office order No.2A-9-07-III: 30092 dated July 23, 2008 holding that the action of the General Body in prohibiting the applicant (respondent No.4 in the present appeal) from discharging his duties was invalid and illegal and requested the Secretary of the Governing Body to forthwith allow respondent No.4 to perform his duties as a lecturer in the college.We are of the view that the matter has not been satisfactorily dealt with and at the same time there are materials to suggest that respondent No.4 was able to obtain the ex parte order from the Director on the basis of a document, the genuineness of which is doubtful. We, therefore, deem it just and proper to set aside all the previous orders passed both by the High Court and the Director and remit the case to the Director to consider the matter afresh after hearing respondent No.4, the Governing Body of the College and the appellant and pass a fresh order on his appeal in accordance with law. We are informed that different proceedings/cases arising from the earlier orders passed by the Director are pending before the High Court and/or in other courts. As we have set aside all the earlier orders, any proceedings arising therefrom pending before any court shall also stand abated. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above but with no order as to costs.
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5670 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.32029 of 2010) Jayanti Kumari Nayak … Appellant Versus State of Orissa & Ors. … Respondents J U D G M E N T Aftab Alam, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Respondent No.4, Rajeswar Panda … Continue reading
Apex court allowed the rejection petition when the high court partly allowed.= in the election petition, the returned candidate filed a petition under or.6, rule 16, and or.7 rule 14 for striking some paras and consequently dismiss the election petition. high court partly allowed and remanded for trail. But the Apex court upheld that there is no cause of action survive to for trail and dismissed the election petition in toto.= the question that falls for determination is: if an independent contesting candidate dies after the publication of list of contesting candidates, does the electoral law as contained in 1951 Act or the Rules framed thereunder cast any obligation upon the returning officer not to display the name of such deceased candidate in the EVM. =no
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2689 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 23285 of 2011) Jitu Patnaik …. Appellant Versus Sanatan Mohakud & Ors. ….Respondents JUDGMENT R.M. Lodha, J. Leave granted. 2. The two paragraphs – 7(A) and 7(D) – of the election petition occupied … Continue reading
SERVICE MATTER = 1. What was the true nature of the appointment of the respondent? In particular, was the appointment regular or simply contractual in nature? and 2. If the appointment was contractual, was the termination thereof vitiated by any legal infirmity to call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution?=in the modern commercial world, executives are engaged on account of their expertise in a particular field and those who are so employed are free to leave or be asked to leave by the employer. Contractual appointments work only if the same are mutually beneficial to both the contracting parties and not otherwise. 29. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa dismissing the Writ Appeal No.11 of 2003. We, however, direct that the salary and allowances if any paid to respondent No.1 pursuant to the impugned judgment shall not be recovered from him. Parties shall bear their own costs in this Court as also in the courts below.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.11303 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.10164 of 2008) GRIDCO Limited & Anr. …Appellants Versus Sri Sadananda Doloi & Ors. …Respondents J U D G M E N T T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Two questions fall for our … Continue reading
arbitration and conciliation act = In our view, this is not a case where money can be an adequate compensation, since the Appellant has apparently acquired a 50% interest in the Trade Mark in question, together with the goodwill of the business in relation to the products in which the Trade Mark is used. 39. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court erred in reversing the order passed by the District Judge in ARBP No.576 of 2007 filed by the Appellant, under which the status-quo would have been maintained till the dispute was settled in arbitration. 40. We, accordingly, allow the Appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10434-10435 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.3391-3392 of 2011) SURESH DHANUKA … APPELLANT Vs. SUNITA MOHAPATRA … RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T ALTAMAS … Continue reading
elections =improper rejection of nomination papers =the Returning Officer erred in acting in hot haste in rejecting the nomination paper of the proposed candidate and not postponing the scrutiny to the next day, particularly, when a request was made by the authorised representative of the proposed candidate. The election petitioners have been successful in proving the improper rejection of the proposed candidate’s nomination paper. In other words, they have been able to prove the ground for setting aside appellant’s election to 89-Athagarh Assembly Constituency under Section 100(1)(c) of the 1951 Act.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4956 OF 2010 Ramesh Rout …. Appellant Versus Rabindra Nath Rout ….Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4962 OF 2010 JUDGMENT R.M. Lodha, J. The returned candidate — Ramesh Rout – whose election to the 14th Orissa Legislative … Continue reading
the Wage Board Award recommending revised scales of pay was not clear if the advance increments were to continue and the Anomaly Committee after considering the matter had recommended that the benefit of advance increments should be given to employees who graduated or passed the Accounts Examinations on or before 30.06.1971 and that those who have passed the concerned examinations after this date shall not be eligible for this benefit. In the proceedings of the meeting of the OSEB held on 12.05.1973 it was also made clear that the OSEB accepted the recommendations of the Anomaly Committee not to allow advance increments in the case of employees who had obtained the degree or passed the Accounts Examinations subsequent to 30.06.1971. If respondent Nos. 1 to 5 desired to challenge this
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6904 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.12901 OF 2008) Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. … Appellant Versus Khageswar Sundaray & Ors. … Respondents O R D E R A. K. PATNAIK, J. Leave granted. 2. This is an appeal against … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 