Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing R.Sivakumari vs Ramanathapuram Mavatta Payirchipetra on 11 October, 2007

Mr.M.Pounraj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 October, 2012

21.It is not disputed in the counter that the name of the petitioner was not sponsored. The stand taken in the counter is that the selection was to be made from the list of qualified candidates sponsored by the Director, District Employment & Training Department, Chennai, based on communal rotation. The counter does not deal with the submissions that the selection was contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Sivakumari.R Vs. Ramanathapuram Mavatta Payirchipetra Edainilai Asiriyargal Sangam [2007(5) CTC 561].
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - V K Sharma - Full Document

Mr.M.Pounraj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 October, 2012

21.It is not disputed in the counter that the name of the petitioner was not sponsored. The stand taken in the counter is that the selection was to be made from the list of qualified candidates sponsored by the Director, District Employment & Training Department, Chennai, based on communal rotation. The counter does not deal with the submissions that the selection was contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Sivakumari.R Vs. Ramanathapuram Mavatta Payirchipetra Edainilai Asiriyargal Sangam [2007(5) CTC 561].
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - V K Sharma - Full Document

R.Amirthaveni vs The District Employment Exchange ... on 29 April, 2008

Before a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sivakumari,R. vs. Ramanathapuram Mavatta Payirchipetra Edainilai Asiriyargal Sangam, reported in 2007 (5) CTC 561 (FB), the right of candidates who have got appointment in private aided school to be sponsored by the Employment Exchange to the Government post, fell for consideration. In the said case, the Full Bench, while holding that the Employment Exchange cannot act as the only source of recruitment, further held that the recruitment to Government post was to be made by adopting procedures such as, (i) by notifying through Employment Exchanges, (ii) issuing publications in newspapers having wide circulation, inviting applications, (iii) displaying Notification in notice boards of respective offices or making announcements in media and the Full Bench held that right to employment to a public services is valuable right and the Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. No discrimination can be made between persons already in employment and persons who are not in employment except by the law enacted by Parliament or State under Article 16 (3) or 16(4) of the Constitution. Thereby, the Full Bench held that persons already in employment can also apply.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 8 - S J Mukhopadhaya - Full Document

G.Appavu vs The Joint Director Of Higher on 31 October, 2011

10.Insofar as the first issue is concerned, it was correctly argued by Mr.V.Ajoy Khose, learned counsel for the petitioner that maintaining the name in the live register of the employment exchange cannot be held to be misconduct in terms of the Code of Conduct prescribed under the Private Schools Act. Already a Full Bench of this court in R.Sivakumari Vs. Ramanathapuram Mavatta Payirchipetra Edainilai Asiriyargal Sangam reported in 2007 (5) CTC 561 held that there was no specific provision for inclusion or deletion of names from live register and on the ground that the name was found in the employment register, no person can be removed from the rolls of the employment exchange. Therefore, it can never be said to be any misconduct. The Full Bench had posed a question in paragraph 14 and gave an answer for the said question in paragraphs 39(a) and 39(d), which reads as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - K Chandru - Full Document
1   2 3 Next