Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (1.14 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Police Hubli And Anr vs R.S. More on 21 January, 2003

Smt. Pratibha D/O Samuel Dube vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 February, 2009

In such circumstances, it is submitted, the law is settled that there will be no automatic confirmation unless such an order is passed. In our view, there cannot be any dispute about the proposition that where no maximum period of probation is provided there would be no automatic confirmation of the employee on expiry of period of probation unless an order is passed in that regard. In such cases it is taken that the period of probation continues unless and until an order of confirmation is passed. Our attention has been drawn to the decision in the case of Commr. of Police vs. R.S. More. In this case the appointing authority was empowered to extend the period of probation upto certain prescribed limit. But there was a further provision that mere expiry of the prescribed period or extended period of probation would not entitle the probationer to claim satisfactory completion of his probation. Hence he would continued to be under probation and it would not be treated as deemed confirmation. In connection with this case it may be observed that the rule itself provided for extension of period of probation and thereafter that completion of period of probation or extended period of probation will not automatically entitle ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:22:13 ::: 15 the employee deemed to have been confirmed unless a specific order in that regard is passed. Hence the above decision would not be of any help to the respondent. It may further be observed that in the matter of period of probation and confirmation, it would always depend upon the language of the rule on the point.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - K K Tated - Full Document

Municipal Commissioner Baroda vs For And On Behalf Of Narsing Sursing ... on 24 August, 2004

The apex Court has considered the case of Commissioner of Police, Hubli v. R.S.More (supra) which has been relied on by Mr.Desai. The apex Court has observed that if rules do not prescribe any maximum period of probation beyond which it cannot be extended, then in such circumstances, after completion of such maximum period, the employee concerned is deemed to be confirmed in service.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Shamim Ilyas Vohra vs State Of Gujarat & on 7 January, 2016

34. The   judgments   cited   by   the   learned   Assistant  Government   Pleader   are   not   required   to   be  referred to in extenso, for the reason that the  proposition of law that there can be no deemed  confirmation in the absence of a specific order  has   already   been   discussed   hereinabove.   Each  case would have to be examined in the context of  the   specific   rules   governing   it.   In  Commissioner   of   Police,   Hubli   And   Another   v.   R.S.   More   (supra),  reliance   has   been   placed  upon  High Court of M.P. Through  Registrar  and   Others   v.   Satya   Narayan   Jhavar   (supra),  which  has   been   quoted   in   extenso   earlier   in   this  judgment.   The   other   judgments   more   or   less  Page 57 of 60 HC-NIC Page 57 of 60 Created On Fri Jan 08 01:55:25 IST 2016 C/SCA/22763/2006 CAV JUDGMENT reiterate   the   same   principles   of   law,   in   the  context   of   the   relevant   rules   in   particular  cases.   In   order   to   avoid   repetition,   the   said  judgments are not being dealt with individually.
Gujarat High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - A Kumari - Full Document

V.K. Mittal & Ors vs Registrar General, High Court Of Delhi & ... on 21 January, 2016

63. It is the above legal position that has been reiterated in a number of later cases including the three relied upon by the Petitioners including Commissioner of Police v. R. S. More (supra) Mir Mohd. Kasim v. Union of India (supra) and Kazia Mohd Muzzammil v. State of Karnataka (supra). In each there was a different set of Rules, and facts, not comparable with the case on hand. In R.S. More, for e.g., the question was whether in the absence of a specific order of the competent authority confirming the Respondent, his continuation on the post beyond the extended period of probation entitled him to claim a 'deemed W.P. (C) 2836/2010 Page 28 of 46 confirmation'? That question was answered in the negative in view of the relevant rules. Again in Mir Mohd. Kasim it was noticed that a relaxation was provided to the employee therein both in terms of the period for clearing an exam as well as the extended period of probation. Additionally, the competent authority had issued an order to the effect that he had satisfactorily completed the period of probation. It was in those circumstances that it was held that there was no need for a separate order of confirmation. The decision in Kazia Mohd Muzzammil summarises the settled legal position and notes that:
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 10 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Mir Mohammad Khasim vs Union Of India And Ors on 26 March, 2004

In such circumstances, it is submitted, the law is settled that there will be no automatic confirmation unless such an order is passed. In our view, there cannot be any dispute about the proposition that where no maximum period of probation is provided there would be no automatic confirmation of the employee on expiry of period of probation unless an order is passed in that regard. In such cases it is taken that the period of probation continues unless and until an order of confirmation is passed. Our attention has been drawn to a decision in the case of Commissioner of Police, Hubli & Anr. vs. R.S.More, (2003) 2 SCC p.408. In this case the appointing authority was empowered to extend the period of probation up to certain prescribed limit but there was a further provision that mere expiry of the prescribed period or extended period of probation would not entitle the probationer to claim satisfactory completion of his probation. Hence he would continued to be under probation and it would not be treated as deemed confirmation. In connection with this case it may be observed that the rule itself provided for extension of period of probation and thereafter that completion of period of probation or extended period of probation will not automatically entitle the employee deemed to have been confirmed unless a specific order in that regard is passed. Hence the above decision would not be of any help to the respondent. It may further be observed that in the matter of period of probation and confirmation it would always depend upon the language of the rule on the point.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 8 - B Kumar - Full Document

The Managing Director Energetic vs Presiding Officer And Anr on 10 December, 2012

In S.K. Maini, supra, the Supreme Court rather held against the case of the respondent no.2 in the present case because in that case it was held that nature of duties, not designation, would be important to determine whether or not, a workman is employee doing more than one duties and functions for the purpose of Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 and in deciding so, main duties of an employee and not some works incidentally done by such an employee, would be decisive.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - M Rafiq - Full Document
1   2 3 Next