w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



U.P. Sainik School Society, Sarojini Nagar & Others v/s Dr. Sursari Tarang Mishra


Company & Directors' Information:- A SCHOOL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80211TN2011PTC079455

Company & Directors' Information:- NAGAR CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900PN2013PTC148356

    Special Appeal No. 74 of 2014

    Decided On, 17 February 2014

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. DHANANJAYA YASHWANT CHANDRACHUD & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA

    For the Appellants: Lalit Shukla, Advocate. For the Respondent: L.P. Misra, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. This special appeal arises from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27 November 2013. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has allowed a writ petition filed by the respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution and has set aside an order of termination dated 9 May 2003. The respondent was initially appointed in pursuance of an advertisement which was issued by the appellants on 1 March 2000 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition). The advertisement was issued by the Principal of the appellants for appointment on a temporary post, inter alia, of a Hindi Teacher. The initial appointment on 30 June 2000 was for a period from 1 July 2000 to 30 September 2000 on a consolidated remuneration. The letter of appointment stated that the services of the respondent were purely temporary and could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition filed by the respondent, he specifically averred that he was originally appointed on an ad hoc basis on the post of Hindi Master in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement. The Selection Committee, which was constituted in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, consisted of the Principal, Officiating Head Master and the two teachers in Chemistry and History respectively, this being the averment in paragraph 5 of the writ petition. The services of the respondent were extended from time to time until eventually they were terminated by order dated 9 May 2003. The respondent challenged the order of termination by instituting the writ proceedings before this Court. During the pendency of the writ proceedings, an interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 24 July 2003. A special appeal against the interim order was dismissed.

2. By the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, which is now impugned in appeal, it has been held that the respondent was appointed on an ad hoc basis on 30 June 2000. However, the view of the learned Single Judge is that as per the terms of the advertisement, the appointment was to be made against a regular vacancy. The learned Single Judge held that though the respondent had been engaged in 2000, he is still continuing in service; no material has been brought on the record to establish a misconduct or inefficiency on his part; and the termination of the services of the respondent was held to be unfair on the ground that the appointment was made against a regular vacancy on the post of Hindi Teacher though he was given an ad hoc/contractual appointment.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the advertisement in pursuance of which the respondent was appointed specifically stated that applications were invited for a temporary appointment in respect of the post of a Hindi Teacher amongst other posts. The respondent applied for the post of Hindi Teacher in pursuance of the advertisement and his services were extended from time to time. Under Rule 5(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Sainik School (Teaching and Allied Staff) Service Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), it has been stipulated that in the case of a temporary vacancy, the Principal may make an appointment for a period not exceeding six months. On the contrary where a regular appointment is to be made to a post in the teaching staff, Regulation 5(3) requires a Selection Committee consisting of (i) the Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Education Department; (ii) the Principal; (iii) a nominee of the Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Education Department, not below the rank of Deputy Secretary or Deputy Director of Education, Uttar Pradesh; and (iv) One specialist nominated by the Chairman. In the present case, the respondent had applied in pursuance of the advertisement which stated that the appointment was temporary. The Selection Committee which was constituted was not a Selection Committee for regular appointment as stipulated in Rule 5(3) of the Rules, since the appointment was not for a regular selection. This defence was specifically raised in the counter-affidavit. Moreover, it was submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in finding fault with the appellants since the services of the respondent were admittedly of a temporary nature and they could be dispensed with without assigning any reason. The continuance of the respondent under an interim order, which was passed by the learned Single Judge during the pendency of the writ proceedings, ought not to have weighed with the learned Single Judge at the final hearing of the petition in view of the settled position and law.

4. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that the appointment was not of an ad hoc nature, as the advertisement was issued for a temporary appointment. There is a distinction between an ad hoc appointment and temporary appointment. Rule 5(5) of the Rules provides for making of appointments to a temporary vacancy, whereas in the present case, the appointment was to a regular vacancy. There was no justification on the part of the appellants to make a temporary appointment and hence, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition for the reasons, which have weighed in the final judgment.

5. The rival submissions now fall for consideration.

6. At the outset, it would be necessary to note that the respondent moved the writ proceedings with a specific averment that he had applied in pursuance of the advertisement dated 1 March 2000. The advertisement which was issued by the Principal on 1 March 2000 for teaching posts including a Hindi Master provided that the appointment was to be on a temporary basis. The Rules provide for the source and procedure of recruitment in Rule 5. Rule 5(1) states that whenever it is required to fill any post, the Principal shall invite applications through the nearest Employment Exchange and also by advertisement in one or more newspapers having wide circulation in the area. Rule 5(2) states that the Principal, upon scrutinizing the applications received, will call eligible candidates to appear before the Selection Committee for interview. In the case of teaching staff, the Selection Committee is to consist of (i) the Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Education Department; (ii) the Principal; (iii) a nominee of the Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Education Department, not below the rank of Deputy Secretary or Deputy Director of Education, Uttar Pradesh; and (iv) One specialist nominated by the Chairman. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Selection Committee that was constituted, was not a Selection Committee as contemplated in Rule 5(3) of the Rules, since the averments in paragraph 5 of the writ petition itself indicate that the Selection Committee which interviewed the respondent consisted of the Principal, the Officiating Head Master and two teachers. In the present case, the advertisement was for appointment on a temporary post. Rule 5(5) of the Rules allows the Principal to make such appointments for a period not exceeding six months on the initial scale of pay and allowances. The initial appointment was thereafter extended from time to time until the services of the respondent were terminated on 9 May 2003.

7. We find merit in the contention which has been urged on behalf of the appellants that the learned Single Judge has manifestly erred in corning to the conclusion that the respondent was appointed on an ad hoc/contractual basis against an advertisement which was issued for a regular vacancy for the post of Hindi Teacher. Ex facie, this is a misreading because the advertisement dated 1 March 2000 was for a temporary appointment. Moreover, in respect of regular appointments, the Selection Committee is required to be constituted in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Rules. Admittedly, as the averment of the respondent in the petition itself would indicate, the Selection Committee which interviewed him was not a Selection Committee as mandated by Rule 5(3) of the Rules. The appointment of the respondent was terminated on 9 May 2003. In the counter-affidavit that was filed on behalf of the appellants, it was specifically averred in paragraph 22 that the process of regular selection had already been started against the post in question. The effect of the interim order was to protect the services of the respondent. However, the fact that the respondent thereafter continued in service in pursuance of the interim order would not detract from the original nature of the appointment, nor can he gain any higher equity as a result of the interim protection.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust Tr. Pres. and Another Vs. Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel and Another, . That is a case, where the employee was appointed as a Teacher in pursuance of an advertisement inviting applications. Following a notice to show-cause, his services were terminated on the ground that he did not possess the eligibility for the post and that the process had not been followed in making the appointment. Before the State Primary Education Tribunal, the employee succeeded and the Tribunal directed reinstatement with back wages. The writ petition of the employer was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on the ground that the provisions of Section 40-B of the Bombay Primary Education (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1986 had not been observed since no notice was issued to the employee, nor was approval of the competent authority taken. The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court noted the concession of the counsel for the employer that the statutory provisions of Section 40-B of the Act had not been followed on both counts. However, it was urged on behalf of the employer that the teacher in question was not duly qualified. This submission was answered by holding that the Division Bench of the High Court had furnished full details of the teachers who had been employed together with the teacher in question and had the same qualifications in spite of which, they were continued in service. Hence, it was held that the first respondent in those proceedings had been victimized and discriminated against. The judgment of the Supreme Court is, therefore, on these facts and is clearly distinguishable. The facts of that case would indicate that there was a breach of the statutory provisions contained in Section 40-B of the Act, which was conceded by the employer. That apart, it was also found that there was an act of discrimination which amounted to victimization of the teacher whose services were terminated.

9. On the other hand, the facts of this case would indicate that the appointment of the respondent was made specifically in pursuance of an advertisement by which a temporary vacancy was advertised. The appointment was extended from time to time and was thereafter terminated by order simplicitor dated 9 May 2003. The selection which took place was not for a permanent vacancy, nor for that matter was the Selection Committee constituted a Selection Committee under Rule 5(3) of the Rules for a regular appointment.

10. In this

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

view of the matter, the judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition is unsustainable. The special appeal would have to be allowed and is, accordingly, allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27 November 2013 is set aside. In consequence, the writ petition filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. 11. At the conclusion of the judgment, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the services of the respondent may be continued until a regular selection is made and some weightage may be given to him for the services which he has already rendered, while making a regular selection, if he applies for the post when advertised. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has no objection. 13. To protect the interests of the students, we direct that the respondent may continue in service until a regular selection in accordance with law is made on the post in question. So far as the grant of weightage for the services already rendered is concerned, the respondent may make an application to the Selection Committee, which shall be considered in accordance with law. The special appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

03-07-2020 Shakti Schools Private Limited Versus M/s. Chirec Public School High Court of for the State of Telangana
29-06-2020 Dadasaheb Versus State by Adarsh Nagar PS Vijayapura, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Kalaburagi High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
15-06-2020 M.P. Singh Rathore Versus Little Flowers Public School, Through Its Manager, Shivaji Park Shahdara, Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-06-2020 Dr. Hans U. Nagar Versus John Nagar & Another High Court of Delhi
03-06-2020 M. Karunya Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 The Correspondent, St.Antony's Girls Primary School, Near Head Police Office, Coimbatore & Others Versus The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 C. Thankammu Versus The Head Master, High School, Anthikkad Thrissur & Others High Court of Kerala
29-05-2020 Lakhamshi Govindji Haria School Versus Kirit Bhupatbhai Bhatt & Another High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
26-05-2020 Sharanbasappa Versus The State through Ashok Nagar P.S., Represented by Addl. SPP High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
21-05-2020 Satish Versus State by Rajagopal Nagar Police Station, Represented by Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
19-05-2020 Sri Venkateshwara Agencies, represented by its proprietor K. Somasundar Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Check Post Officer, Thoppur Inward, Kurinji Nagar & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 The Manager, Devadar Aided Lower Primary School, Puliyil, Malappuram District Versus U. Usha & Others High Court of Kerala
15-05-2020 Yogesh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
05-05-2020 Shobha Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Annexe, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
30-04-2020 Gajanan Shahu Keripale Versus The State of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, School Education & Sports Dept, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-04-2020 M/s. Aruna Web Offset Printers represented by its Managing Partner & Another Versus Andhra Bank, A Govt of Undertaking, Himayat Nagar Branch & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
15-04-2020 Dr. Srinivas Guntupalli Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Guntur & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
23-03-2020 Delhi Public School, East Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
18-03-2020 Abhighyan Bhattacharya & Another Versus School Of Engineering & Technology & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-03-2020 Indira Cheriya Kadavan Versus V.M. Gangadharan, Manager, Thillankery U.P School, Kannur & Others High Court of Kerala
16-03-2020 A. Pandi Selvi Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-03-2020 V.D. Vetri Azhagan (Deceased) & Others Versus The Executive Officer, Gandhi Nagar Selection Grade, Town Panchayat, Vellore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-03-2020 Bhavna Kisan Uradya & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 Yogesh Kalyanrao Ghadage And Another V/S The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-03-2020 Nitin Kumar Jain Versus Union of India, Through, Human Resources Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
12-03-2020 Sundarambal Middle School, Rep.by its Educational Agency,M. Gnanaprakasam Versus The District Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
11-03-2020 K. Dharmaraj & Others Versus Sir M.Ct.Muthaiah Chettiar, Higher Secondary School Trust, Rep. by its President, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2020 S. Durai Versus The Assistant Engineer, CIT Nagar-I, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle, Saidapet, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2020 Dnyaneshwar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-03-2020 Madras Christian College Higher Secondary School, rep. by its Head Master, Chetpet Versus The Secretary to Government, Govt. of Tamilnadu, School Education (C2)Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Aided Primary School, rep. by its Secretary, Thazhambadi, Puduchathiram Union, Namakkal District Versus The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 M/s. Sumeru Soft P.Ltd, T. Nagar, Chennai Versus The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward - 6[4], Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 Vikrant Prataprao Gaikwad & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary School Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-02-2020 P. Krishnasamy Versus The Government of Tamilnadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, (School Education and Elementary Education Department), Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
28-02-2020 U.M. Aided Primary School, Prakasam Dist. Rep. by its Correspondent Versus State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary School Education Depart. & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
28-02-2020 Vikrant Prataprao Gaikwad & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-02-2020 Nagar Nigam & Another Versus District Consumer Forum I, Lucknow & Another High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
26-02-2020 Manager & Correspondent, Madasa E.Deeniyath Aided Elementary School, Ambur Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2020 Nitin Ramesh Khedekar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
25-02-2020 Vaishali Raoso Ghadage & Another V/S The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-02-2020 Raya Xavier (Died) & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
21-02-2020 Secretary, Bairgachi High School Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-02-2020 The Manager, St. Paul's Higher Secondary School, Kozhinjampara Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary To Government, General Education Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
19-02-2020 Rajiv Nagar Residential Welfare Association, Represented by its President, M. Ramaswamy, Thiruvallur Versus The District Collector, Thiruvallur & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 Raj Nagar Extension N H 58 Developers Association & Another Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
18-02-2020 Mohd Shafiq & Others Versus Anuradha Gupta, Director School Education & Another High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
17-02-2020 A.R. Chennimalai Gounder Matriculation Higher Secondary School Represented by the Correspondent S. VAnithamani Versus Union of India Represented by the Secretary Ministry of Environment, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-02-2020 Mather Nagar Residents Association, Ernakulam, Represented by Its President Junaith Naina & Another Versus The District Collector, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
10-02-2020 Ajinder Singh Versus Vodafone Idea Limited (formerly known as IDEA Cellular Limited), Gandhi Nagar & Others Competition Commission of India
10-02-2020 K. Varada Pillai Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2020 Rajasthan Housing Board Through Secretary Jyoti Nagar Jaipur Rajasthan & Another Versus V.V. Harit National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-02-2020 M/s. Shintec Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Authorised Signatory, Vanagaram Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) JJ Nagar Assessment Circle, Thirumangalam, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-02-2020 Navshakti Educational Society Versus Laxman Public School & Others High Court of Delhi
06-02-2020 Mahesh Kumar Sharma Versus The Principal, Vidya Niketan Birla Public School, Pilani District Jhunjhunu & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
04-02-2020 St.John's English Primary School & Another Versus Education Officer, (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
04-02-2020 School Management, St. Xavier Public School Korba Versus Raghuvanshi Chandra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-02-2020 D. Ramchander Versus The State of Telangana, rep by its Secretary School Education Department Secretariat & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
31-01-2020 V. Saraswathi Versus The Director of School Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
30-01-2020 M.V. Rangarajan Versus State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 M/s. Lanco Tanjore Power Company Ltd., T.Nagar, Chennai & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 Reckitt Benckiser School India Ltd V/S Union of India and Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 Reckitt Benckiser School India Ltd. (Previously SSL-TTK Limited) A Company existing under the Companies Act, 2013, Represented by its Authorized signatory M. Ponraj, Kancheepuram Versus Union of India through the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 The Nilamangai Nagar Welfare Association, (Rego.No.81/80) Rep. By its Secretary K.Sankararama Sarma, Chennai Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development (UDSRI) Dept., Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-01-2020 T.V. Thomas, P.D. Teacher, Govt. U.P. School, Thottumukkom, Kozhikode & Others Versus Joint Secretary, General Education Department, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
24-01-2020 Sree Sai Nagar/Gokul Nagar Kudiyiruppor Nala Sangam, rep. by its President N. Ramalingam Versus The Commissioner, Tambaram Municipality & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-01-2020 Navanirman Public School Versus District Employment Officer, Kochi & Others High Court of Kerala
24-01-2020 South Indian Artistes' Association, Rep. by its General Secretary, T. Nagar Versus The Registrar of Societies, South Chennai, District Registrar (Admin), Guindy Industrial Estate, Guindy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-01-2020 G. Maria Antony Michael Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
23-01-2020 E. Saral Versus The Director of School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 Divyabala Vidyalayam High School EM V/S The State of Telangana HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
14-01-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Limited Versus Sant Dasganu Maharaj Shetkari Sangh Akolner, Taluka Nagar & Others Supreme Court of India
13-01-2020 Andhra Bank, Sowcarpet, Chennai Versus M/s. Bhagya Nagar Solvent Extractions Pvt. Ltd., T. Nagar, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-01-2020 M/s. Singapore Reality Private Limited, Represented by its Director having office at T. Nagar, Chennai also at Siruseri Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Industries Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-01-2020 P. Subramani Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Govt., Department of School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Through The Assistant Engineer, District-Sri Ganga Nagar Rajasthan Versus Ravi Kant National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-01-2020 K. Shobana Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-01-2020 Surinder Nath Kesar Versus Board of School Education & Others Supreme Court of India
06-01-2020 Kothandaraman High School, Rep. by its Correspondent, Uthukottai Versus The Director of School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 St. Joseph's Boy's Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School, Rep. by its Correspondent, Coonoor, Nilgiris Versus The Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration & Water Supply, The Government Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 The Management, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Rep.by through its Senior Regional Manager Versus The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Dasildar Nagar, Anna Nagar, Madurai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-01-2020 I. Sundararajan Versus Director, Tamil Nadu School Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-01-2020 A. Mary Lithiya Nithilakumari Versus The Joint Director of School Education, (Higher Secondary), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-12-2019 Saiyed Murad Shirazi Versus Commissioner of School & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
19-12-2019 Dnyanganga Shikshan Sanstha, Aurangabad, through its Secretary, namely, Yogesh Vinayakrao Patil Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
19-12-2019 Sunita Laxmanrao Fuke Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
19-12-2019 Dnyanganga Shikshan Sanstha & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Chief Secretary, School Education Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
19-12-2019 The Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Maraimalai Nagar Division, Chennai & Another Versus M/s. Daejung Moparts Pvt Ltd., Kanchipuram District & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-12-2019 DAV Public School Versus The Senior Manager, Indian Bank, Midnapur Branch & Others Supreme Court of India
18-12-2019 Somasundaram Chettiar Primary School V/S The District Educational Officer, Sivagangai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-12-2019 Saraswathy Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-12-2019 M/s. Aradhana Distributors Pvt. Ltd., through its Director Sanjay Kumar Patodia Versus M/s. Renault India Pvt. Ltd., T. Nagar High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-12-2019 A.S.M.J. Haja Mohideen Versus Measi Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-12-2019 P.A. Abdul Saleem Versus The Director of School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-12-2019 Gharshala Buniyadi Shikshan Vibhag (Home School) Versus Madhuben Mansukhlal Gohel Supreme Court of India
05-12-2019 Meena Oberoi Versus Cambridge Foundation School & Others High Court of Delhi
04-12-2019 P. Jagadeesan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-12-2019 Basava Engineering School of Technology Rep. by its Principal B.J. Patil Versus State of Karnataka Rep. by its Prl. Secretary Department of Technical Education High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
29-11-2019 Jeyavel & Others V/S The State Rep. by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anna Nagar Sub Division Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
27-11-2019 The Manager, St. Paul's Higher Secondary School, Kozhinjampara, Palakkad Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary To Government, General Education Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
26-11-2019 M/s. Hallmark Capital Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Anand Jain, T. Nagar, Chennai Versus The District Collector, Kanchipuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras