Court Visit Draft.docx

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY 2017-18

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION COURT VISIT DRAFT

SUBMITTED BY:

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF:

SHWETA RAO(149),SHREYAVERMA(144),MENKA SINGH(099) SHURBHI YADAV(147), SWAPNIL SINGH(155)

DR. RAJNEESH YADAV ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (LAW)

SECTION ‘B’

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA

B.A. LLB (Hons.), SEMESTER IV

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

COURT VISIT DRAFT

Court NameCourt no.- 3 (Civil Cases)

Judge BenchTwo Judges Bench

Judge’s nameHon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Lamba and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anand Gupta

Cases Discussed1- Vipin Kr. Singh and 9 others v. State of U.P. through Lucknow Prin. Secy. Cooperation. and others. FactsThe basic issue raised in the case was that the posts in the company against whom the case was filed were being filled up without any rules and regulations in spite of the fact that an order was made by the division bench earlier under Section 25 and 26 to frame rules and regulations for the same. In written petition the petitioner side said that rules and regulations have been framed but were unable to produce them in the court.

The court heard the arguments from both sides and provided Monday as next day for further proceedings to support the case.

2- Shiv Chandar and 10 others v. U.P. Power CorporationFactsThe basic issue was regarding recruitment of 2 people sitting , who scored same marks in test. The honourable judge heard the arguments and provided another day for further proceedings.

3- Smt. Shahjahan Begum v. Managing Director U.P. Roadways Transport Co. FactsThe basic issue involved in this case was regarding alteration of the date of birth in medical certificates. Honourable judge listened to the pleadings from both the sides and gave 11-0418 as the next day for another hearing.

4- Sanjay Kumar Chaturvedi v. Registrar Cooperative Society Lucknow The commission of the society was the appointing authority. The petitioner of this case was appointed as a clerk in the society. He was suspected because f an FIR lodged against him under the sec. E C act. Wherein the final report was already submitted by the investigating officers.

The writ petitioner was filed that day.

5- Jogeshwar v. State of U.P. through Scay. Panchayati Raj Lucknow and others. The petitioner was an employee of panchayati raj in this case who wasn’t provided pension. Was given 3rd A.C.P. and until promotion he got retired. There was certain amount due to him which was not mentioned in the writ petition and hence court provided another date for hearing.

6- Pooja Kushwaha v. State of U.P. through Principal Sector of Rural Development. In this case the petitioner’s service was not satisfactory as she was not working properly in the village assigned. Later on, she was terminated from her job. Writ petition was filed that day.

7- Rasool Ahmed v. State of U.P. through Princ. Secy. Basic Education Lucknow. The petitioner in this case was a part time urdu teacher. The procedure for appointment is that it should be made at a place where there is presence of more than 20% muslim population. He was adjusted at a place with a fellow teacher who was appointed after him. Inspite of the fact that he was appointed first at that place, he was removed when population decreased. Court heard the pleadings from both the side and gave next date or further proceedings.

8- Anjali Devi v. State of U.P. The petitioner was appointed as a part time instructor in a basic education school. At the time of appointment the no. of students were 100 which further decreased to 48 after her appointment. The para 2 of rules clearly specified that no.of students for further renewal should be 100. Court heard the pleadings and provided another day for hearing.