Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (3.15 seconds)

Page No.# 1/29 vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 26 September, 2025

[22.] Let us now refer to the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Asomi Gogoi (Dr.) (supra) has held that the condition precedent in making an appointment under Regulation 3(f) of the Regulations would be that the same cannot be against a permanent sanctioned post already in existence and can be invoked only in a situation where the administrative authorities are of the view that for the purpose of administrative exigency, posts beyond the permanent sanctioned post are required to be created and such posts on being created would last for a period lesser than 4 (four) months and for which, no consultation with the APSC would be required. However, in the instant case, as may be noticed, the advertisement was not preceded by any post/posts being sanctioned or created. The petitioners were appointed on 22.02.2021 and the posts were Page No.# 28/29 subsequently sanctioned on 05.03.2021. Therefore, the referred case is not found to be applicable in the instant case.
Gauhati High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - N Sailo - Full Document

Page No.# 1/29 vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 26 September, 2025

[22.] Let us now refer to the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Asomi Gogoi (Dr.) (supra) has held that the condition precedent in making an appointment under Regulation 3(f) of the Regulations would be that the same cannot be against a permanent sanctioned post already in existence and can be invoked only in a situation where the administrative authorities are of the view that for the purpose of administrative exigency, posts beyond the permanent sanctioned post are required to be created and such posts on being created would last for a period lesser than 4 (four) months and for which, no consultation with the APSC would be required. However, in the instant case, as may be noticed, the advertisement was not preceded by any post/posts being sanctioned or created. The petitioners were appointed on 22.02.2021 and the posts were Page No.# 28/29 subsequently sanctioned on 05.03.2021. Therefore, the referred case is not found to be applicable in the instant case.
Gauhati High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - N Sailo - Full Document

Page No.# 1/29 vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 26 September, 2025

[22.] Let us now refer to the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Asomi Gogoi (Dr.) (supra) has held that the condition precedent in making an appointment under Regulation 3(f) of the Regulations would be that the same cannot be against a permanent sanctioned post already in existence and can be invoked only in a situation where the administrative authorities are of the view that for the purpose of administrative exigency, posts beyond the permanent sanctioned post are required to be created and such posts on being created would last for a period lesser than 4 (four) months and for which, no consultation with the APSC would be required. However, in the instant case, as may be noticed, the advertisement was not preceded by any post/posts being sanctioned or created. The petitioners were appointed on 22.02.2021 and the posts were Page No.# 28/29 subsequently sanctioned on 05.03.2021. Therefore, the referred case is not found to be applicable in the instant case.
Gauhati High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - N Sailo - Full Document

Page No.# 1/29 vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 26 September, 2025

[22.] Let us now refer to the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Asomi Gogoi (Dr.) (supra) has held that the condition precedent in making an appointment under Regulation 3(f) of the Regulations would be that the same cannot be against a permanent sanctioned post already in existence and can be invoked only in a situation where the administrative authorities are of the view that for the purpose of administrative exigency, posts beyond the permanent sanctioned post are required to be created and such posts on being created would last for a period lesser than 4 (four) months and for which, no consultation with the APSC would be required. However, in the instant case, as may be noticed, the advertisement was not preceded by any post/posts being sanctioned or created. The petitioners were appointed on 22.02.2021 and the posts were Page No.# 28/29 subsequently sanctioned on 05.03.2021. Therefore, the referred case is not found to be applicable in the instant case.
Gauhati High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - N Sailo - Full Document
1