Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 256 (1.03 seconds)
Documents citing Rudra Kumar Sain & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 August, 2000

State Of U.P.Throu.The Secy.Education ... vs Smt. Neelima Srivastava And Another on 7 May, 2018

73. Hon'ble Apex Court in para-16 and 19 of Rudra Kumar Sain and others Vs. Union of India and others (supra) has interpreted the words 'ad hoc', 'stopgap' and 'fortuitous'. It is specifically mentioned by the Apex Court in para-19 that the meaning to be assigned to these terms, while interpreting the provisions of a service rule will depend on the provisions of that rule and the context in and the purpose for which the expressions are used. Therefore, appointment of respondent No.1 cannot be termed as ad hoc appointment, because there is no provisions in the Service Rules of 1981 or 1983 for appointment in leave vacancy as stopgap arrangement.
Allahabad High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - D K Arora - Full Document

Kum. C. Yamini, D/O C.R. Krishna, Aged 45 ... vs #High Court Of Judicature At Hyderabad, ... on 27 April, 2018

21. Despite the dismissal of the other writ petition of the very same petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended: (1) that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Debabrata Dash v. Jatindra Prasad Das , adhoc appointees should be considered for absorption as against regular vacancies and since regular vacancies in this case arose in the year 2004, her appointment should be counted as against the regular vacancies that arose in 2004; (2) that the order in G.O.Ms.No.68 should not be considered as an order of appointment but an order of absorption; (3) that since the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad did not prescribe any rule for fixation of seniority of adhoc District Judges upon their absorption, no reliance can be placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Judicial Service Association v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay and (4) that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Rudra Kumar Sain v. Union of India , any person appointed with the approval and consultation of the appropriate authority, cannot be considered to have been appointed as a stop gap arrangement or purely on adhoc basis if he has continued for a fairly long time.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - N Balayogi - Full Document

Kum C. Yamini vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 14 August, 2019

8. Kum. C. Yamini, appellant appearing in person has mainly contended that when the appellant was appointed to the very same post of District Judge in the year 2003 by following the procedure as applicable to the regular appointments and when the appellant was selected and appointed pursuant to the notification issued on 02.07.2013, there is no reason or justification for denying her seniority in the cadre of District Judges from initial date of appointment in the year 2003. She 8 C.A .@ S.L.P(C) No.20990/17 etc. etc. has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Rudra Kumar Sain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 7 - R S Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next