Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)
Kumar Kunal vs 2025:Jhhc:34926 on 24 November, 2025 cites

Narendra Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 August, 2018

18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir (supra) has clearly held at paragraph-19 that even if the appointment process did not involve open competitive selection, the appointment would be treated as irregular and not illegal. The impugned order has been passed treating the appointment of the petitioners to be illegal as no advertisement was issued.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 79 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 20 September, 1990

In Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P, this Court has emphasized that the State, even in contractual or administrative 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1751 14 2025:JHHC:34926 matters, cannot act arbitrarily and must be guided by constitutional values. These observations gain special relevance in cases where authorities, rather than conducting granular scrutiny, proceed to cancel entire appointments in a sweeping manner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 1487 - J S Verma - Full Document

Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra & Ors vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 19 February, 2014

19. The judgment in Renu³ does not preclude, as a principle of law, the framing of an appropriate scheme of regularisation in appropriate situations meeting the norms spelt out in Umadevi (3) and the decisions which have followed. Dealing with a scheme framed for regularisation, this Court in Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa held as follows: (Amarendra Kumar case12, SCC pp. 607, 609 & 610, paras 38, 43 & 45) "38. Equally important is the fact that even after declaring the true legal position on the subject and even after deprecating the practice of appointing people by means other than legitimate, this Court felt that those who had served for ten years or so may be put to extreme hardship if they were to be discharged from service and, therefore, directed the formulation of a scheme for their regularisation. This was no doubt a one-time measure, but so long as the appointment sought to be regularised was not illegal, the scheme envisaged by para 53 of the decision extracted above permitted the State to regularise such employees. Dr Dhavan argued that the appellant Stipendiary Engineers had, by the time the decision in Umadevi (3) case was pronounced, qualified for the benefit of a scheme of regularisation having 2 2017 (3) SCC 410 15 2025:JHHC:34926 put in ten years as ad hoc Assistant Engineers and fifteen years if their tenure was to be counted from the date of their employment as Stipendiary Engineers. He contended that even in the absence of a Validation Act, Stipendiary Engineers appointed on ad hoc basis as Assistant Engineers, who had worked for nearly ten years to the full satisfaction of the State Government would have been entitled to regularisation of their services in terms of any such scheme.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 151 - T S Thakur - Full Document

State Of Karnataka & Ors vs M.L. Kesari & Ors on 3 August, 2010

(1) the employees have worked for ten years or more. (2) that they have so worked in a duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal, and (3) they should have possessed the minimum qualification stipulated for the appointment. Subject to these three requirements being satisfied, even if the appointment process did not involve open competitive selection, the appointment would be treated irregular and not illegal and thereby qualify for regularisation. Para 7 in this regard is apposite and may be extracted at this stage: (M.L. Kesari case 13, SCC p. 250) '7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against "regularisation" enunciated in Umadevi (3). if the following conditions are fulfilled:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1834 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1