Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing C.C. Sasikala vs The Assistant Superintendent Of Post ... on 24 September, 1999

M.D. Valsa vs The Senior Supdt. Of Post Offices on 9 February, 2010

B) When the post of GDS Mail Packer, Ayyanthole became vacant, the respondent No. 2 who is the competent appointing authority issued notice No. GDSMP/Ayyanthole dated 29.4.2009 inviting applications from open market for appointment to the said post. The applicant has challenged the aforesaid notice on the ground that she should have been considered first in terms of the aforesaid Annexure A-3 letter dated 6th June, 1988. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon an order of this Tribunal in C.C. Sasikala Vs. The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Kochi & Ors. dated 24.9.1999 in which it was held as under:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.Usha vs The Superintendent Of Post Offices on 3 July, 2015

In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that '. . . . . .adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because, an employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, which we have described as 'litigious employment' in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. . . . . . . '
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - P Gopinath - Full Document
1