UPTET - Urdu Teacher Oppose TET Qualification which does NOT apply to Applicants , Next Hearing on 12th March 2012
See Case Details / Earlier Hearing Here :- http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.in/2012/02/uptet-urdu-teacher-oppose-tet.html
Next Hearing Date :- 12-March-2012
Case Details on 13-Feb-2012 : -
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 34
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1226 of 2010
Petitioner :- Furqan Ali And Others
Respondent :- Sri Anup Chandra Pandey, Secy. Basic Education And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Shailendra
Respondent Counsel :- B.P.Singh,S.C.
Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J.
Pursuant to the order dated 17.1.2012, Sri Anil Sant, Secretary, Basic Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow (opposite party no.6) and Sri D.C. Kannojia, Director Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow (opposite party no.4) and also holding the additional charge of Director, SCERT, U.P. are present.�
In the order dated 17.1.2012 they were required to remain present along with their respective affidavits giving parawise replies of the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt application and the other affidavits filed by the applicant and also the observations made in the said order.� Sri K.S. Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the aforesaid two officers has filed separate applications and affidavits seeking a month's further time for filing� counter affidavits and also seeking exemption from personal appearance.
This contempt application is pending since March, 2010. Notices have been issued to the opposite parties on 18.3.2010.� The present Secretary, Basic Education was impleaded by order dated 10.1.2011 and the Director, Basic Education was already party in the original contempt application.� Notices issued to the opposite party no.6 in January, 2011 is reported to have been served on or before February, 2011 and in so far as the opposite party no.4 is concerned the notices were served much earlier before April, 2010. Both the said officers filed affidavits in response to the notices which were only short affidavits and do not deal with the parawise replies to the affidavit of the applicant. Such affidavits were filed on their own risk and not under any order of the Court. If the opposite parties chose to file affidavits not giving parawise replies and further even after an opportunity is granted by the Court after about two years� that too after hearing the matter at length, the application filed today seeking further time is not in good taste.� The opposite party nos. 4 & 6 were under notice of contempt and the detailed affidavit ought to have been filed at the first instance.
This is also a caution to all the Government Officers and/or all the opposite parties in contempt proceedings that detailed replies to the affidavits should be filed and that should be a normal course to be adopted by the opposite parties in the contempt proceedings. However in only exceptional cases short affidavits or affidavit of compliance may be filed.
In that view of the matter the Court with great hesitation allows three weeks time to the opposite party nos. 4 & 6 to file their parawise replies to the affidavits as also to the� observations made in the order dated 17.1.2012 subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- each to be paid from their own sources. The costs shall be tendered by way of an account payee Bank Draft drawn in favour of the Registrar General of the Court along with the Counter Affidavit that may be filed on the next date.
List on 12.3.2012. Both the opposite parties who are present today shall remain present on the next date.
A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. Lucknow to be circulated to all the Head of the Departments to be communicated to all the Government Officers that on receipt of the contempt notices detailed affidavits giving parawise replies should normally be filed except in exceptional cases.
Order Date :- 13.2.2012
RPS
Info Source : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=1688155
See Case Details / Earlier Hearing Here :- http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.in/2012/02/uptet-urdu-teacher-oppose-tet.html
Next Hearing Date :- 12-March-2012
Case Details on 13-Feb-2012 : -
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 34
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1226 of 2010
Petitioner :- Furqan Ali And Others
Respondent :- Sri Anup Chandra Pandey, Secy. Basic Education And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Shailendra
Respondent Counsel :- B.P.Singh,S.C.
Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J.
Pursuant to the order dated 17.1.2012, Sri Anil Sant, Secretary, Basic Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow (opposite party no.6) and Sri D.C. Kannojia, Director Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow (opposite party no.4) and also holding the additional charge of Director, SCERT, U.P. are present.�
In the order dated 17.1.2012 they were required to remain present along with their respective affidavits giving parawise replies of the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt application and the other affidavits filed by the applicant and also the observations made in the said order.� Sri K.S. Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the aforesaid two officers has filed separate applications and affidavits seeking a month's further time for filing� counter affidavits and also seeking exemption from personal appearance.
This contempt application is pending since March, 2010. Notices have been issued to the opposite parties on 18.3.2010.� The present Secretary, Basic Education was impleaded by order dated 10.1.2011 and the Director, Basic Education was already party in the original contempt application.� Notices issued to the opposite party no.6 in January, 2011 is reported to have been served on or before February, 2011 and in so far as the opposite party no.4 is concerned the notices were served much earlier before April, 2010. Both the said officers filed affidavits in response to the notices which were only short affidavits and do not deal with the parawise replies to the affidavit of the applicant. Such affidavits were filed on their own risk and not under any order of the Court. If the opposite parties chose to file affidavits not giving parawise replies and further even after an opportunity is granted by the Court after about two years� that too after hearing the matter at length, the application filed today seeking further time is not in good taste.� The opposite party nos. 4 & 6 were under notice of contempt and the detailed affidavit ought to have been filed at the first instance.
This is also a caution to all the Government Officers and/or all the opposite parties in contempt proceedings that detailed replies to the affidavits should be filed and that should be a normal course to be adopted by the opposite parties in the contempt proceedings. However in only exceptional cases short affidavits or affidavit of compliance may be filed.
In that view of the matter the Court with great hesitation allows three weeks time to the opposite party nos. 4 & 6 to file their parawise replies to the affidavits as also to the� observations made in the order dated 17.1.2012 subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- each to be paid from their own sources. The costs shall be tendered by way of an account payee Bank Draft drawn in favour of the Registrar General of the Court along with the Counter Affidavit that may be filed on the next date.
List on 12.3.2012. Both the opposite parties who are present today shall remain present on the next date.
A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. Lucknow to be circulated to all the Head of the Departments to be communicated to all the Government Officers that on receipt of the contempt notices detailed affidavits giving parawise replies should normally be filed except in exceptional cases.
Order Date :- 13.2.2012
RPS
Info Source : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=1688155
0 comments:
Post a Comment