Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.81 seconds)
Sri Mohana M J vs The Managing Director on 16 April, 2026 cites

Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006

20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 4959 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Dharam Singh And Others vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 9 March, 1962

13.8.In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P.13 , this Court strongly deprecated the culture of "ad-hocism" adopted by States in their capacity as employers. The Court criticised the practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 51 - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs Basant Lal And Ors on 18 February, 1992

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been appointed pursuant to the notification issued by the respondent against clear vacancies. Even though as per the notification it is on contract basis for a period of three years, thereafter their services have been continued with intermittent brakes. Since their services have not been regularized they have given a representation but, without considering the case of the petitioners, now, the respondent is making efforts to replace the petitioners by fresh recruitment. The same is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SECRETARY TO THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS vs. UMADEVI reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS vs. SANT LAL AND OTHERS, ETC. (Civil Appeal Nos.175-176/2019 (@SLP (C) Nos.37798
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 23 - N M Kasliwal - Full Document
1