Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 316 (1.09 seconds)
Documents citing J & K Public Service Commission vs Dr Narinder Mohan on 7 December, 1993

Shah Jolly Chandravadan And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 15 July, 2002

52. Appointment of Lecturers in Government Colleges are subject to statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Undisputedly, all these posts are within the purview of Public Service Commission. Till the date of publication of advertisement for recruitment referred to herein above, State Government had never tried for concurrence and regularisation of Lecturers appointed on ad hoc basis. So, the question of accepting such request or rejection had not arisen. Some of the decisions cited including the decision in the case of J. & K. Public Service Commission (supra), deal with the cases where request to accord concurrence and regularization of services either were wrongly or were erroneously accepted.
Gujarat High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 3 - C K Buch - Full Document

Bibekananda Das vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 19 November, 2004

145. For reaching the above conclusions, the Division Bench of this Court has relied upon, amongst others, the decisions in J.C. Yadav v. State of Haryana, , Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India reported in (1992) Supp SCC 772, Syed Khalid Rizvi v. Union of India, reported in (1993) Supp (3) SCC 575, State of Orissa v. Sukanti Mahapatra, , M.A. Haque (Dr.) v. Union of India , Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan, and Suraj Prakash Gupta v. State of J & K .
Gauhati High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 4 - I Ansari - Full Document

Shri Shankar Nath Tiwary And Ors., Smt. ... vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 23 July, 2002

21. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by a Division bench recently in State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Ashoke Ranjan Chandra and Ors., reported in 1999 (2) CHN 387 wherein strong reliance had been placed on J&K Public Service Commission and Ors. v. Dr. Narinder Mohan and Ors. , , and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dharam Bir, .
Delhi High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 15 - S B Sinha - Full Document

R.Angayarkani vs The Secretary To The Government on 3 January, 2017

"The admitted position is that the Commission having been entrusted with the constitutional duty to select suitable candidates by inviting applications from the open market, every candidate has a fundamental right to seek consideration and for selection through open competition. The petitioners also have that right. At one time, they staked their claims but were not selected. Therefore, the process of recruitment through the Commission, as envisaged under the Constitution, cannot be bypassed by issuing direction for regularisation of the services of the ad hoc persons who had come to the service through back-door entry. This Court in catena of decisions has deprecated this practice of regularisation except in extra-ordinary cases by directing the Government to frame a scheme and regularise Class III and IV services in accordance with the scheme. Even in subsequent decisions, that leverage is not being insisted upon. This Court in J & K Public Service Commission & Ors., v. Dr.Narinder Mohan & Ors., [(1994) SCC (L & S) 723] had held that the Court cannot adopt hybrid process of direction to regularise the services bypassing process of selection envisaged under the Constitution. This Court has deprecated the Government for exercising the power under Article 320 of the Constitution taking out the posts from the purview of the Commission and to regularise services de hors the Commission. Under those circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim to grant the relief sought for.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Payal vs State on 15 March, 2010

[g] Decision in case of J & K Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan, reported in AIR 1994 SC 1808, was cited for the proposition that the executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution could be exercised only to fill in the gaps but such instructions cannot and should not supplant the law, but would only supplement the law. It was held that, having made the rules governing recruitment, the executive cannot fall back upon its general power under Article 162 to regularise the ad hoc appointments under the Rules. It was held that the Rule 9(3) of the J & K Medical Education (Gazeted) Services Recruitemtn Rules (1979), empowered only to relax the qualification of age in particular exigencies which cannot be called in aid to relax the rules of recruitment. It was held that the Government had no power to make regular appointment under the Rules without selection by the Public service commission under Article 133(1) of the J. & K. Constitution.
Gujarat High Court Cites 77 - Cited by 0 - K Jhaveri - Full Document

Indian Airlines Canteen Workers' Union vs Director Personnel, Indian Airlines ... on 20 April, 2000

They have also said that the absorption can only be as per the scheme which principle has been applied in Indian Airlines v. Samresh Bhownick (supra), In Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder (supra), the Supreme Court has held that long period of ad hoc employment will not entitle an employee for regularisation. They have got to compete with others. The Supreme Court has further held that if persons have to be regularised ignoring rules and qualifications, it will amount to a third mode of selection which is not permissible.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Sachin Kumar vs Department Of Defence Production on 9 May, 2025

23. The Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence Production Directorate of Ordnance (C & S), Kolkata (Coordination & Policy) has issued letter for clarification dated 10.04.2023 stating that in cases where the vacancies has been sanctioned by Ministry of Defence/OFB, date of communication from OFB for recruitment against such vacancies may be considered at cut- off date for considering eligibility of Government servant for coverage under CCS (Pension) Rules. The date of notification/sanction of vacancy/post showed be taken as the date for deciding the eligibility 13 O.A. No. 985/2024 for coverage under CCS (Pension) Rules. The said justification has been given in line with Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 07.12.1993 in the case of J & K Public Service Commission Vs. Dr. Narinder Mohan reported in 1994 SCC (2) 630 and in the case of Rakesh Bhardwaj Vs. State of U.P., Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad vide judgment dated 09.05.2007. Their Lordships made distinction between notification of vacancy and said vacancy advertised in daily newspapers. The respondents in its clarification/communication dated 10.04.2023 already justified that the date of sanction of vacancy/post for the recruitment should be taken as the date for deciding eligibility for coverage under CCS (Pension) Rules.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next