Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)
Documents citing Dr. S.C. Kaushik vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 9 July, 1980

Shakuntala P. Devlekar vs Surat Municipal Corporation on 30 April, 2002

[p] The decision of this Court in Dr. S.C. Kaushik v. Union of India, reported in XXI G.L.R. 997 was cited to point out that, in a case where medical officer who was serving for more than five years was replaced by a fresh recruit and both had not passed the selection examination, it was held that the impugned termination was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the Rule of `last come first go' should be observed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Saroj Bahedia vs State Of Gujarat & 4 on 23 June, 2016

3. I further say and submit that at the time of admission, this Hon'ble Court issued notice relying on judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Dr. S.C.Kaushik vs. Union of India, 1980 GLR 997. I most respectfully and humbly submit that in both the cases i.e. of 1980 and the present case, the cause of termination is not identical and is different. The cause of termination in 1980 GLR 997 is that, that the ad-hoc appointee has not passed selection examination and hence was terminated. But in the present case, the ad-hoc appointee was terminated due to reduction of 4 posts of Tutors in Pathology Department of Medical College, Baroda. Hence, in the present case, there is no discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Vyas Amit Dipakkumar & 17 vs Principal District Judge & 2 on 29 March, 2017

In this regard, he has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Dr. S. C. Kaushik Vs. Union of India  and Anr., reported in 1980 GLR 997. According to him, the persons, who have been appointed as per Annexure-E being also on temporary/ad hoc basis, the action of the respondents in terminating the Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Tue Aug 15 13:42:32 IST 2017 C/SCA/16911/2013 ORDER services of the petitioners, replacing them by other set of ad hoc employees is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document
1