Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 8076 (1.12 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Karnataka & Ors vs M.L. Kesari & Ors on 3 August, 2010

The State Of Jharkhand vs Mahendra Gope Son Of Sri Chakkan Gope on 7 October, 2021

7. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned AAG-III appearing for the respondents/appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in passing the impugned judgment which has been passed without appreciating the fact that the appointments made in favour of the writ- petitioners are illegal and therefore, the judgment rendered either in the Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others vs. Uma Devi (3) and Ors. (supra) or in the State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. M.L. Kesari & Ors. (supra) or in the Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) will not be applicable, as such, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R Ranjan - Full Document

Gadadhar Rana vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 2 December, 2025

Relying upon Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , the High Court has further referred to the judgment in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari [(2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] which is considered by this Court and this Court has clearly held that Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] casts a duty upon the State Government to take steps to regularise the services of those irregularly appointed appointees, who had served for more than 10 years without the benefit or protection of any interim order. Further in the said case, this Court has declared that it has been clearly ordered that one-time settlement/measure should be taken within six months i.e. from 10-4-2006. With reference to the aforesaid decision the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent employees placed reliance upon Article 142 of the Constitution in support of the submission that order of the Supreme Court be respected and implemented in its true meaning and spirit. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court accepted the same and came to the conclusion that the claims of the respondent employees for regularisation in their posts are fit cases and they became unfortunate only because of the creation of the State of Jharkhand over which the employees had no control and could not have prevented creation of the State of Jharkhand and because of that reason only, one State cannot take a different stand with respect to the employees appointed by the same process. The State Government cannot throw the employees jobless after 30 years of their continuous service in public employment guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution, which would result in great injustice since their source of income will be taken away and thereby the employees and their families will suffer due to the arbitrary action of 13 the State Government of Jharkhand which deprived a person of life and liberty guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India."
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Uday Kant Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 May, 2024

In the aforesaid circumstances, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.L. Kesari & Others (supra) does not apply to the facts of this case. In the present case, the appointment of the petitioners is neither illegal nor irregular, rather the appointment is through advertisement on contractual legally extended from time to time and last renewal stipulates that there would be no extension/renewal. Merely because the petitioners have continued for a period more or less than 10 years, the same does not confer any right upon them to claim extension/renewal of contract or regularization.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A R Choudhary - Full Document

Uday Kant Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 May, 2024

In the aforesaid circumstances, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.L. Kesari & Others (supra) does not apply to the facts of this case. In the present case, the appointment of the petitioners is neither illegal nor irregular, rather the appointment is through advertisement on contractual legally extended from time to time and last renewal stipulates that there would be no extension/renewal. Merely because the petitioners have continued for a period more or less than 10 years, the same does not confer any right upon them to claim extension/renewal of contract or regularization.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A R Choudhary - Full Document

Uday Kant Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 May, 2024

In the aforesaid circumstances, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.L. Kesari & Others (supra) does not apply to the facts of this case. In the present case, the appointment of the petitioners is neither illegal nor irregular, rather the appointment is through advertisement on contractual legally extended from time to time and last renewal stipulates that there would be no extension/renewal. Merely because the petitioners have continued for a period more or less than 10 years, the same does not confer any right upon them to claim extension/renewal of contract or regularization.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A R Choudhary - Full Document

Uday Kant Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 May, 2024

In the aforesaid circumstances, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.L. Kesari & Others (supra) does not apply to the facts of this case. In the present case, the appointment of the petitioners is neither illegal nor irregular, rather the appointment is through advertisement on contractual legally extended from time to time and last renewal stipulates that there would be no extension/renewal. Merely because the petitioners have continued for a period more or less than 10 years, the same does not confer any right upon them to claim extension/renewal of contract or regularization.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A R Choudhary - Full Document

The State Of Jharkhand vs Vishnu Kumar Bansal on 5 December, 2025

43. As to what would constitute an irregular appointment is no longer res integra. The decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. M.L.. Kesari 13, has examined that question and explained the principle regarding regularisation as enunciated in Umadevi (3) case. The decision in that case summed up the following three essentials for regularisation: (1) the employees have worked for ten years or more. (2) that they have so worked in a duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal, and (3) they should have possessed the minimum qualification stipulated for the appointment. Subject to these three requirements being satisfied, even if the appointment process did not involve open competitive selection, the appointment would be treated irregular and not illegal and thereby qualify for regularisation.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R Mukhopadhyay - Full Document

The State Of Jharkhand vs Vishnu Kumar Bansal on 5 December, 2025

43. As to what would constitute an irregular appointment is no longer res integra. The decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. M.L.. Kesari 13, has examined that question and explained the principle regarding regularisation as enunciated in Umadevi (3) case. The decision in that case summed up the following three essentials for regularisation: (1) the employees have worked for ten years or more. (2) that they have so worked in a duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal, and (3) they should have possessed the minimum qualification stipulated for the appointment. Subject to these three requirements being satisfied, even if the appointment process did not involve open competitive selection, the appointment would be treated irregular and not illegal and thereby qualify for regularisation.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R Mukhopadhyay - Full Document

The State Of Jharkhand vs Vishnu Kumar Bansal on 5 December, 2025

43. As to what would constitute an irregular appointment is no longer res integra. The decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. M.L.. Kesari 13, has examined that question and explained the principle regarding regularisation as enunciated in Umadevi (3) case. The decision in that case summed up the following three essentials for regularisation: (1) the employees have worked for ten years or more. (2) that they have so worked in a duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal, and (3) they should have possessed the minimum qualification stipulated for the appointment. Subject to these three requirements being satisfied, even if the appointment process did not involve open competitive selection, the appointment would be treated irregular and not illegal and thereby qualify for regularisation.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R Mukhopadhyay - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next