Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 328 (1.17 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr vs Dharam Bir on 8 June, 1998

Shri Goutam Saha vs Shri Haradhan Saha on 29 June, 2018

"Thus from these evidences it can be concluded that the defendants objected to something for which they are not entitled to. It has already been decided that on the 3B schedule land only the plaintiff has exclusive title and right to use the same. Defendants without holding any right is not entitled to raise any objection for constructing a wall by the plaintiff for better enjoyment of his own land i.e Schedule 3B land. Though is such a situation it agreeable that the defendants will face some problems in moving their vehicle if plaintiff constructs the said wall, but in absence of any legal right in favour of the defendants to prevent the plaintiff in doing so this Court is in not in a position to help the defendants. While dealing with this kind of situations the observation of Hon‟ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dharam Bir 1998 SC was The Court has to remain impartial and not swayed by sympathy, in order to deliver any justice for ensuring that the faith of public in the justice delivery system is not eroded."
Tripura High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Karmesh Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Vidhan ... on 6 March, 2024

(34) In the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh and another v. Dharam Bir (supra) and State of Karnataka v. Gadilingappa & others (supra), the facts of both cases are more or less similar. In the former case, the minimum essential qualification prescribed for the the post of Principal of Industrial Training Institute is Diploma in Engineering, whereas in the later case, the minim prescribed qualification is T.C.H. and they had worked for a long period of time. In both cases, since they were not having the minimum prescribed qualification, the Apex Court opined that their appointments were illegal appointments. Here in this case, since the appellant did not possess the minimum qualification prescribed for appointment on the post of Information Officer, the appointment offered to him on the basis of invalid relaxation is dehors the Rules and illegal.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

K.D. Vohra vs Kamleshbhai Gobarbhai Patel on 11 December, 2002

(b) Decision of the Supreme Court in State of M. P. v. Dharam Bir, reported in 1998 (6) SCC 165 was cited for the proposition that when the post was not filled up on a regular basis in accordance with the Rules, it could be treated by the State to be vacant. The Court held that whether a person holds a particular post in a substantive capacity or is only temporary or ad hoc is a question which directly relates to his status. It all depends upon the terms of appointment. It is not open to any Government employee to claim automatic alteration of status unless that result is specifically envisaged by some provision in the statutory rules. Unless, therefore, there is a provision in the statutory rules for alteration of status in a particular situation, it is not open to any Government employee to claim a status different than that which was conferred upon him at the initial or any subsequent stage of service.
Gujarat High Court Cites 76 - Cited by 42 - Full Document

Parmar Ramsinh Nathabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 1 April, 2019

17. It was argued that, from the continuance of the ad hoc appointees for long period, it should be inferred that the recruitment rules were relaxed in their favour and they are deemed to have been regularised. The appointments of the appellants and the like were mere local appointments made dehors the rules and such ad hoc appointments could not have been made for a period exceeding one year, without consulting the Public Service Commission. The posts having not been filled up on regular basis in accordance with the statutory rules were required to be treated as vacant for the purpose of undertaking the process of regular recruitment. The terms of appointment of the ad hoc appointees clearly Page 44 of 79 C/SCA/9458/2017 CAV JUDGMENT stipulated that they would be relieved when the PSC candidate or a transferee was available. Such ad hoc status of these appointees did not at any stage alter by any rules or regulations having force of law. The appellants and the like who were appointed in ad hoc capacity, therefore, continued to hold the posts in that capacity only, and there would be no alteration of their status from ad hoc appointees to regular recruits. As held by the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Dharam Bir, reported in (1998) 6 SCC 165, it is not open for any government employee to claim automatic alteration of status unless that result is specifically envisaged by some provision in the statutory rules. The exigencies of service often require ad hoc arrangement till the regular selection gets finalised. If the ad hoc employees who continued as ad hoc beyond one year are to be regularised or deemed to have been regularised as argued on their behalf, that would frustrate the very process of selection and appointment as per the mode and procedure prescribed by the statutory rules, and, as would happen in the present case, no posts would be left for the regularly selected persons, because, two persons cannot hold the same post on a regular basis.
Gujarat High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - A J Shastri - Full Document

Ratan Singh vs Dr. M.M.M. Beg And Ors. on 11 July, 2002

In State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Dharam Bir, , the Apex Court while considering the matter as to whether the status of an ad hoc employee in the absence of a statute or statutory rules can be changed to a regular employee, although they did not fulfill the educational qualification, held that the educational qualification has direct nexus with the nature of the post. It was further held that gaining a similar experience itself cannot be treated as equivalent to his knowledge in a subject for which he does not possess a degree which was a pre-requisite.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S B Sinha - Full Document

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

In Tarak Chowdhary v. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in 2000 (2) SLR 445, the Calcutta High Court noticed various judgments of the Apex Court and the Calcutta High Court itself, i.e., Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar (Supra); R.N. Nanjundappa (Supra); B.N. Nagarajan (Supra); Sreenivasa Reddy and Ors. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. ; Dharam Bir (Supra); Biman Ch. Karmakar v. State of West Bengal reported in 1999 (2) CHN 289; and W.B. Essential Commodities Supply Corporation (Supra) .
Delhi High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 15 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Payal vs State on 15 March, 2010

[b] Decision of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Dharam Bir, reported in (1998) 6 SCC 165 was cited for the proposition that when the post was not filled up on a regular basis in accordance with the Rules, it could be treated by the State to be vacant. The Court held that whether a person holds a particular post in a substantive capacity or is only temporary or ad hoc is a question which directly relates to his status. It all depends upon the terms of appointemnt. It is not open to any government employee to claim automatic alteration of status unless that result is specifically envisaged by some provision in the statutory rules. Unless, therefore, there is a provision in the statutory rules for alteration of status in a particular situation, it is not open to any government employee to claim a status different than that which was conferred upon him at the initial or any subsequent stage of service.
Gujarat High Court Cites 77 - Cited by 0 - K Jhaveri - Full Document

Alpa vs State on 7 April, 2010

[b] Decision of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Dharam Bir, reported in (1998) 6 SCC 165 was cited for the proposition that when the post was not filled up on a regular basis in accordance with the Rules, it could be treated by the State to be vacant. The Court held that whether a person holds a particular post in a substantive capacity or is only temporary or ad hoc is a question which directly relates to his status. It all depends upon the terms of appointemnt. It is not open to any government employee to claim automatic alteration of status unless that result is specifically envisaged by some provision in the statutory rules. Unless, therefore, there is a provision in the statutory rules for alteration of status in a particular situation, it is not open to any government employee to claim a status different than that which was conferred upon him at the initial or any subsequent stage of service.
Gujarat High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 0 - K Jhaveri - Full Document

Centre For Development Of Telematcs vs D. Suresh And Ors. on 5 August, 2003

11. The Apex Court in STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER vs DHARAM BIR. (Supra) , while considering the case of the respondent who was initially appointed as Senior Instructor and later promoted as Principal, Class II, for a period of six months or till the candidate duly selected by the Public Service Commission for that post became available (whichever was earlier), observed that the nature of appointment does not change with long passage of time and even if the ad-hoc appointment continues for about a decade it continues to be ad- hoc even after long passage of time and held that the respondent was appointed in ad hoc capacity and he would continue to hold the post in that capacity.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next