//
archives

Primary school

This tag is associated with 2 posts

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. = The certificate reveals the date of birth of the accused as 10.05.1991. The school leaving certificate was proved by examining the head mistress of the school. She has recognized the signatures of the principal who issued the school leaving certificate. The evidence adduced by the head mistress was not challenged. Consequently, there is no reason to discard that document. Further, we notice that there was some confusion as to whether the appellant, whose name is Ranjeet Goswami is the same person Rajiv Ranjan Goswami. The investigating officer’s report indicates that they are different persons. Consequently we have to take it that the school leaving certificate produced was in respect of the appellant which has been proved.- We, therefore, find no reason to reject the school leaving certificate. If that be so, as per the ratio laid down in Ashwani Kumar Saxena (supra) there is no question of subjecting the accused to a medical examination by a medical board. Going by the school leaving certificate since the appellant was a juvenile on the date of occurrence, he can be tried only by the JJ Board. Consequently, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and that of the Sessions Judge, Dumka is restored. The appeal is allowed, as stated above.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40789 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1465 OF 2013 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.10661 of 2010) Ranjeet Goswami ….. Appellant Versus State of Jharkhand & Anr. ….. Respondents J U D G M E N T K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. We notice … Continue reading

The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, etc.) Act, 1995 = a teacher with mental illness failed to attend her duties and as such she was removed from service due to lack of reply from her. after 3 she filed a complaint before commissioner for reinstatement as she was dismissed when she was under mental distress = For about three years, no action was taken by appellant. In the year 2007 she filed an application before the Commissioner under Section 62 of the Act. The said application was registered as Case No. 253/2007. In the said application, the appellant took plea that the order of dismissal passed by the authorities while she was suffering from mental illness was in violation of Section 47(1) of the Act. The appellant requested for her reinstatement with full back­wages.= whether the Commissioner under Section 62 of the Act can look into the legality of the order of dismissal from service of a disabled person, if it comes to his notice that the said person with disabilities has been deprived of his rights. whether the appellant was entitled for benefits under Section 47(1) of the Act. 13. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act was enacted in 1995 pursuant to meet the following object and reasons: (i) to spell out the responsibility of the State towards the prevention of disabilities, protection of rights, provision of medical care, education, training, employment and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities; (ii) to create barrier free environment for persons with disabilities; (iii)to remove any discrimination against persons with disabilities in the sharing of development benefits, vis­à­vis non­ disabled persons; (iv)to counteract any situation of the abuse and the exploitation of persons with disabilities; (v)to lay down a strategy for comprehensive development of programmes and services and equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities; and (vi)to make special provision of the integration of persons with disabilities into the social mainstream. “47 ­ Non ­discrimination in Government employments ­ (1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service: Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits: Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. (2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability: Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.”= Learned Single Judge by interim order dated 11th January, 2008 directed the respondent to reinstate the appellant and to pay her regular salary w.e.f 1.2.2008 on the following terms: “8. RULE (a)By interim order, there shall be stay against the impugned order of the Commissioner to the extent that the petitioner shall not be required to pay any backwages to the respondent, but the petitioner shall reinstate the respondent in service by paying regular salary to her from 1.2.2008. (b)It is further observed that directed that the petitioner shall get respondent examined through a Government Doctor of their choice and if it is so opined by the doctor, such duty may be assigned to the respondent at a place or a nearby place, where she can comfortably and conveniently, in a safe atmosphere, discharge duty.”- Inspite of the same, the respondent authority have neither reinstated the appellant nor paid salary w.e.f. 1.2.2008. So, they cannot take advantage of their own wrong and, thereby, cannot deny the benefit of wages to which the appellant was entitled pursuant to the order passed by the High Court on 11th January, 2008. -There is nothing on the record to suggest that the respondent authority got the appellant examined by a Government Doctor to determine the duty to be assigned to her. In view of her reinstatement, now the respondent authority may get opinion of the doctor for assigning her duty. In case the appellant is not in a position to perform the normal duty because of her mental condition, the competent authority will apply Proviso to Section 47(1) of the said Act. Having regard to the fact that we have upheld the order passed by the Commissioner, we direct the authorities to reinstate the appellant in service immediately and to pay her regular salary every month. The appellant shall be entitled to arrears of salary w.e.f. 1.2.2008 which the respondent shall pay within three months, else the appellant shall become entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from 1.2.2008 till the actual payment. The appeal is allowed in the manner indicated above and the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40492 Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9324 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.7647 of 2011) GEETABEN  RATILAL PATEL          … APPELLANT VERSUS DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER          … RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 4th November, 2009 passed by the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in L.P.A.No. 1988 of 2009 whereby the Division Bench dismissed the said Letters Patent Appeal   preferred   by  the  appellant  and  affirmed   the order   dated   10th  December,   2008   passed   by   learned Single   Judge   in   Writ   Petition­Special   … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,881,036 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com