Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 155 (3.40 seconds)
Documents citing Shreejith. L vs Deputy Director(Education) Kerala & ... on 3 July, 2012

Nishamol V vs The State Of Kerala

9. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds that, the petitioner has not succeeded in substantiating the filing of an application claiming appointment under Rule 51 B of Chapter XIV A KER, before the 5th respondent within the prescribed time. The submission of the petitioner that the vacancies arose only after 2006 by itself is not enough to have her application dated 19.07.2007 entertained, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Shreejith v. Deputy Director (Education) Kerala (2012 (3) KLT 214 (SC)). As a natural consequence, it cannot be held that, the petitioner is entitled to project a valid claim under Rule 51 B of Chapter XIV A KER. As it W.P.C. No. 27519 of 2011 -10- stands so, the appointment given by the 5th respondent to the respondents (respondents 6 to 9) is not liable to be intercepted in any manner.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - P R Menon - Full Document

Adhilakshmi vs The District Collector on 27 June, 2014

8.Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appellant was eligible for compassionate appointment as per the Rules and Government Orders. The application of the appellant was not considered due to ban order on recruitment imposed by the Government. The appellant furnished all the documents as required by the respondents and at no point of time, the respondents called upon the appellant to furnish indigent certificate. The respondents are fully aware of the poverty of the appellant's family, as they did not have even money for funeral expenses, which was provided by the respondents. Further, as per the Judgment of the Apex Court in Shreejith. L Vs. Deputy Director (Education) Kerala and Others [2012 (7) SCC 248], even married daughters are eligible for compassionate appointment.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - V M Velumani - Full Document

The Commissioner And Secretary To ... vs Angelin Lini on 14 July, 2015

8.Facts deduced from the order made in W.A.(MD)No.216 of 2013, dated 27.06.2014, are that the Government Servant died on 02.04.2002. Immediately, mother of the appellant therein made an application seeking employment assistance, on compassionate grounds. The said request was rejected on the ground inter alia that the appellant was married, at that time and as per G.O.(Ms)No.9, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 19.01.1998, married daughters are not eligible for employment assistance compassionate grounds. When the said order was assailed, the writ petition was dismissed. On appeal, placing reliance on the decision of the Honb'le Supreme Court in Shreejith, L vs. Deputy Director (Education), Kerala and others ? (2012) 7 SCC 248, arguments have been made that married daughters cannot be made ineligible. Accepting the said contention, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court at Paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of its order, in W.A.(MD)No.216 of 2013, dated 27.06.l2014, ordered as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Avishek Mahato vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors on 20 March, 2019

In Shreejith L. Vs. Deputy Director (Education) Kerala reported in (2012) 7 SCC 248, the father of the respondent who had been working as the headmaster of a school died in harness on 27th of April 1995. The respondent no.1 was a minor at that time and attained majority on 8th May, 1995 and got married after that. On 21st of July 2007, the appellant before the Supreme Court was appointed as a peon in the concerned school and on 10 September 2007, the respondent claimed compassionate appointment. A Single Bench of the High Court directed the manager of the school to appoint the writ petitioner/respondent to the concerned school. The manager of the school filed an appeal before the Division Bench which was dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the application filed by the respondent was belated inasmuch as the application was made twelve years after the respondent attained majority and that the respondent had even got married which shows that the family did not face any real financial hardship which called for an appointment on compassionate grounds. The Supreme Court held that the application should have been made by the respondent within the time stipulated regardless of whether there was a vacancy and further that there was nothing on record to show that the family was in penury.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - M Bhattacharya - Full Document

Tinku vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 22 March, 2022

9. Keeping in view the settled principle that the compassionate appointment cannot be used as a source of appointment and it is only an exception, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claim for appointment at that belated stage was not justified. The Apex Court in 'Shreejith L. Vs. Deputy Director (Education) Kerala & others', (2012) 7 SCC 248, and in Sima Banerjee (supra) has held that compassionate appointment is not to be granted at a belated stage and is only an exception to the general source of recruitment.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next