Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 226 (2.11 seconds)
Documents citing Ram Sevak Yadav vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 1 February, 2013

Purnea Municipal Corporation, Purnea vs The State Of Bihar on 30 July, 2019

It was further averred by the respondents that the Patna High Court L.P.A No.1777 of 2018 dt.30-07-2019 12/26 termination of the writ petitioners have been effected in view of the direction issued by this court in a Full Bench decision in the case of Ram Sevak Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar (supra) and also the decision in the case of Manoj Roy (C.W.J.C. No. 25058 of 2013) which was disposed of on 22.04.2014. It is important to indicate here that though in L.P.A. No. 1019 of 2014, the Court was of the opinion that the order with regard to the regularization of 9 persons who had been regularized by virtue of C.W.J.C. No. 10206 of 2011, should not have been disturbed, the order terminating the services of Manoj Roy was not interfered with and only those nine persons have been regularized in pursuance of L.P.A. No. 1019 of 2014. The writ petitioners, as contended by the appellant/respondent Corporation cannot be regularized as they had worked on daily basis in the Nagar Nigam in piecemeal for broken periods and any statement made to the contrary by the writ petitioners was false as they had not completed ten years of their service for regularization in the Purnea Nagar Nigam. Moreover, they had not been appointed against sanctioned vacant posts on which they can seek regularization of their services.
Patna High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A Mishra - Full Document

Ramesh Paswan And Ors vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 28 February, 2024

8. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the present petitioners are admittedly not appointed by the Committee. They have been appointed by one person, whose appointment has been tested up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court Patna High Court CWJC No.6491 of 2018 dt.28-02-2024 9/11 and it has been decided that appointment made by the said person has been declared nullity. He further submits that the Full Bench decision of Ram Sevak Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (supra) is also not in favour of the petitioners. The conclusive portion of the said Hon'ble Full Bench decision is as follows:-
Patna High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Anshuman - Full Document

Deo Kant Choudhary And Ors vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 27 February, 2019

19. Same issue came for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Sevak Yadav & Anr. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra), wherein the Full Bench after considering large number of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, conclusively arrived to a finding that Uma Devi case (supra) prohibits regularization of daily wage, casual, adh-hoc and temporary appointments and the period of service being irrelevant. An illegal appointment is void ab initio as made contrary to the mandate of Article 14 without open competitive selection cannot be regularized under any circumstances. Irregular appointments can be regularized if the appointment was made by an authority competent to do so, it was made on a vacant sanctioned post in accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India with equal opportunity for participation of eligible candidates by competitive selection and the candidates must possess the eligibility qualifications for a regular appointment to the post. The appointment must not have been doled out to the appointee alone and the person must have continued in service over ten years without intervention of any courts' order.
Patna High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - S Pandey - Full Document

Chandrachur Poddar vs The T.M.Bhagalpur University And on 28 February, 2024

7. Learned counsel for the State referring to the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the State of Bihar as also the Director of Higher Education submitted that as per the petitioner's case, he was appointed as Lab Incharge in the department of Botany in the college in question on 9.9.1983 by the Principal of the college under staffing pattern. The petitioner was appointed purely on daily wages on a post which was never sanctioned by the State Government. Even otherwise the power of making appointment on class III and class IV posts vests in the Vice-Chancellor of the University and that too within the sanctioned strength. The Principal of the college was not competent to make any appointment nor does the Act enable the Patna High Court CWJC No.11466 of 2010 dt. 4.3.2024 7/12 Vice-Chancellor to delegate his powers. In fact the University by its letter dated 27.2.1982, 26.3.1982 and 30.7.1982 requested the Principal of the constituent colleges for not making appointment against unsanctioned post or even against sanctioned post without permission of the Vice-Chancellor as any such delegation made in the year 1977 was done away with by these letters much prior to the date when the petitioner was appointed. Learned counsel for the State relies on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Sevak Yadav vs. State of Bihar & others [2013 (1) PLJR 964]. It is submitted that the University has taken a decision to absorb the service of 365 daily wage class III and IV employees who were found eligible in view of the advertisement and accordingly sent recommendation to the State Government in accordance with the roaster. The State Government by its letter dated 11.5.2006 approved the recommendation of the University and accordingly 365 daily wage employees were absorbed in regular service with effect from 5.6.2003 against sanctioned vacant posts. The petitioner also participated in the interview but was not found eligible. There is a delay of four years in filing of the instant writ application. It is submitted that there being no merit in the writ application, the same be dismissed. Patna High Court CWJC No.11466 of 2010 dt. 4.3.2024
Patna High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - P Sarthy - Full Document

Jawahar Lal Ram And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 17 February, 2020

47. Looking to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Sevak Yadav (supra), in which one of the conditions has been made that person must have been appointed in regular manner after the advertisement. Certainly, these petitioners have not been brought into service after following the due process, inasmuch as, claim of absorption can be considered only when the person is in service but, admittedly, in the present case, the petitioners are out of service, so the question of their absorption does not arise.
Patna High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document

Rajo Singh And Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 17 June, 2020

46. The judgment passed in the case of Ram Sevak Yadav (supra) by the Ld. Full Bench of this Court has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Upendra Singh Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in AIR 2018 SC 1315 :: 2018 (3) SCC 680 and further in the judgment reported in 2019 (13) SCC 250 :: 2019 (1) PLJR 102 SC (State of Bihar and others Vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad), thus in such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that as the entry of the writ petitioners in the service has not been in a proper manner i.e. after following the due process of law, under such circumstance, this Court refuses to interfere with the impugned order by which the petitioners have been terminated from their services in the work charge establishment. Before concluding, the Court would take note of another aspect which has been highlighted by the petitioners, pointing out that the services of certain persons, who were brought in the work charge establishment along with the petitioners, have been regularised by Office Order No.42/2013/07 dated 12.01.2015. It has been stated that despite their dismissal by common Memo No. 22 dated 10.01.2004, they have been allowed Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2004 dt.18-06-2020 49/50 to continue in services and finally their services have also been regularised by the aforementioned Memo dated 12.01.2015 for extraneous considerations. However, as neither such persons are before the Court, nor their continuance in service beyond 10.01.2004 and regularisation by Office Order No. 42/2013/07 dated 12.01.2015 is in question in these writ petitions, the Court would refrain from issuing any direction on this issue. Thus, it is left open for the persons concerned to approach the appropriate forum in the matter. It goes without saying that if the same is done, the authorities concerned would look into the same, and take appropriate action, in accordance with law, keeping in mind that illegality, if any committed, is not allowed to be perpetuated.
Patna High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document

Ram Krishna Jha And Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 18 June, 2020

46. The judgment passed in the case of Ram Sevak Yadav (supra) by the Ld. Full Bench of this Court has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Upendra Singh Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in AIR 2018 SC 1315 :: 2018 (3) SCC 680 and further in the judgment reported in 2019 (13) SCC 250 :: 2019 (1) PLJR 102 SC (State of Bihar and others Vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad), thus in such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that as the entry of the writ petitioners in the service has not been in a proper manner i.e. after following the due process of law, under such circumstance, this Court refuses to interfere with the impugned order by which the petitioners have been terminated from their services in the work charge establishment. Before concluding, the Court would take note of another aspect which has been highlighted by the petitioners, pointing out that the services of certain persons, who were brought in the work charge establishment along with the petitioners, have been regularised by Office Order No.42/2013/07 dated 12.01.2015. It has been stated that despite their dismissal by common Memo No. 22 dated 10.01.2004, they have been allowed Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2004 dt.18-06-2020 49/50 to continue in services and finally their services have also been regularised by the aforementioned Memo dated 12.01.2015 for extraneous considerations. However, as neither such persons are before the Court, nor their continuance in service beyond 10.01.2004 and regularisation by Office Order No. 42/2013/07 dated 12.01.2015 is in question in these writ petitions, the Court would refrain from issuing any direction on this issue. Thus, it is left open for the persons concerned to approach the appropriate forum in the matter. It goes without saying that if the same is done, the authorities concerned would look into the same, and take appropriate action, in accordance with law, keeping in mind that illegality, if any committed, is not allowed to be perpetuated.
Patna High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - S Pandey - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next