citedby: 1591733

1 - 10 of 2528 (2.89 seconds)

Documents citing Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006

Jamila Martins vs Income Tax Department on 23 June, 2025

(vii) He further states that the CBDT vide its letter dated 22.07.2009 fixed the cutoff date for reckoning the tenure of working for 10 years or more as the date of the judgment of the Apex Court in the Uma Devi case, i.e. 10.04.2006. The applicant had not completed 10 years of service as on the cutoff date and hence she was not regularized.

Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Azuroddin S/O Late Faimoddin vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 May, 2025

2. The Directorate of Municipal Administration has taken the view that the appointment of Somashekarayya cannot be regularized since he had not been appointed against the sanctioned posts and, in the light of the fact that the parameters laid out Umadevi's case 2 has not been complied with.

Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N S Gowda - Full Document

Mallayya vs State Of Karnataka on 2 May, 2025

2. The Directorate of Municipal Administration has taken the view that the appointment of Somashekarayya cannot be regularized since he had not been appointed against the sanctioned posts and, in the light of the fact that the parameters laid out Umadevi's case 2 has not been complied with.

Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N S Gowda - Full Document

Sri Shivakumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 May, 2025

2. The Directorate of Municipal Administration has taken the view that the appointment of Somashekarayya cannot be regularized since he had not been appointed against the sanctioned posts and, in the light of the fact that the parameters laid out Umadevi's case 2 has not been complied with.

Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N S Gowda - Full Document

Mallikarjun S/O Late Jaganath vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 May, 2025

2. The Directorate of Municipal Administration has taken the view that the appointment of Somashekarayya cannot be regularized since he had not been appointed against the sanctioned posts and, in the light of the fact that the parameters laid out Umadevi's case 2 has not been complied with.

Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N S Gowda - Full Document

Umabai W/O Ambaji vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 May, 2025

2. The Directorate of Municipal Administration has taken the view that the appointment of Somashekarayya cannot be regularized since he had not been appointed against the sanctioned posts and, in the light of the fact that the parameters laid out Umadevi's case 2 has not been complied with.

Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N S Gowda - Full Document

Vishal S/O Dileep Shinde vs State Of Karnataka on 2 May, 2025

2. The Directorate of Municipal Administration has taken the view that the appointment of Somashekarayya cannot be regularized since he had not been appointed against the sanctioned posts and, in the light of the fact that the parameters laid out Umadevi's case 2 has not been complied with.

Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N S Gowda - Full Document

Sri Babu vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 May, 2025

2. The Directorate of Municipal Administration has taken the view that the appointment of Somashekarayya cannot be regularized since he had not been appointed against the sanctioned posts and, in the light of the fact that the parameters laid out Umadevi's case 2 has not been complied with.

Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N S Gowda - Full Document

Mareppa S/O Late Shivayogi vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 May, 2025

2. The Directorate of Municipal Administration has taken the view that the appointment of Somashekarayya cannot be regularized since he had not been appointed against the sanctioned posts and, in the light of the fact that the parameters laid out Umadevi's case 2 has not been complied with.

Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N S Gowda - Full Document

Gabrubhai Revabhai vs Botad Nagar Palika on 6 August, 2021

Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and that decision has been held to be not laying down the correct law but a careful and complete reading of decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 leaves no manner of doubt that what this Court was concerned in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 was the exercise of power by the High Courts under Article 226 and this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in the matters of public employment where the employees have been engaged as contractual, temporary or casual workers not based on proper selection as recognized by the rules or procedure and yet orders of their regularization and conferring them status of permanency have been passed.

Gujarat High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - A P Thaker - Full Document

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next