REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

KRISHNA RAI Appellant

V/S

BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

CHANDRA PRAKASH TIWARI V. SHAKUNTLA SHUKLA [REFERRED TO]
KAVINDRA KUMAR V. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
K.A. NAGMANI V. INDIAN AIRLINES [REFERRED TO]
P K RAMACHANDRA IYER DR Y P GUPTA DR T S RAMAN OM PRAKASH KHAUDHURI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UMESH CHANDRA SHUKLA K S MOHI JAIPAL SINGH MALIK RAJ KUMAR JAIN SURAJ BHAN RAKESH GARG A K CHATURVEDI VS. UNION OF INDIA :UNION OF INDIA :ADMINISTRATOR LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI :UNION OF INDIA:ADMINISTRATOR UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. MOHAMMAD MYNUDDIN [REFERRED TO]
DURGACHARAN MISRA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION STATE OF ASSAM VS. HIRANYALAL DEV:UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MADANLAL VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
MADANLAL VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
KRUSHNACHANDRASAHU VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. N CHANDRASEKHARAN [REFERRED TO]
UTKAL UNIVERSITY VS. NRUSINGHA CHARAN SARANGI [REFERRED TO]
BADRINATH VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
VED PRAKASH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA PRAKASH TIWARI VS. SHAKUNTALA SHUKLA [REFERRED TO]
K SAMANTARAY VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. S THIAGARAJAN [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. A K NARULA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 34 Petitioners, working as Class-IV employees in Banaras Hindu University (hereinafter referred to as 'BHU'), have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging promotion of Respondents 3 to 16 vide order dated 5.6.2007 (Annexure 9) to the post of Junior Clerk and order dated 2.7.2007 (Annexure 1) rejecting Petitioners' representation.

(2.) Sri Ashok Mehta, Advocate, has advanced submissions on behalf of Petitioners and Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, Advocate, has appeared for BHU. None has appeared on behalf of Respondents 3 to 16. Office report dated 18.1.2011 shows that Respondents 3,7,11,12 and 13 were served and their acknowledgments were also received while Respondents 4,5,6,8,9,10,14,15 and 16 were issued notices but neither acknowledgment nor undelivered notice received in office. Thus under the Rules, service upon them is deemed sufficient. Sri Tripathi, however, told that Respondents 3 to 16 have authorized University to defend them.

(3.) The facts in brief giving rise to the present dispute are as under.

Click here to view full judgment.

SRI KRISHNA RAI Vs. BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address