Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.31 seconds)Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
13. It is therefore, not correct to contend that in the aforementioned
backdrop of events, respondents satisfy the tests of equality, reservation or
rule of law as adumberated in Umadevi (supra).
State Of Mysore & Anr vs S. V. Narayanappa on 22 August, 1966
In State of Mysore
v. S.V. Narayanappa this Court stated that it was a
misconception to consider that regularisation meant
permanence.
R. N. Nanjundappa vs T. Thimmiah & Anr on 8 December, 1971
In R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah this
Court dealt with an argument that regularisation would
mean conferring the quality of permanence on the
appointment. This Court stated: (SCC pp. 416-17, para
B. N. Nagarajan And Ors vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. Etc on 3 May, 1959
In B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka this Court
clearly held that the words "regular" or "regularisation"
Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs Ranjodh Singh & Ors on 6 December, 2006
What would be meant
by the term irregularity must be understood in the context of the decision of
this Court in Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board v Ranjodh Singh &
Ors [2006 (13) SCALE 426].
Punjab State Warehousing Corp. , ... vs Manmohan Singh & Anr on 20 February, 2007
The said paragraph has been explained by
this Court in Punjab State Warehousing Corp., Chandigarh v Manmohan
Singh & Anr. [2007 (3) SCALE 401].
A. Umarani vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies And ... on 28 July, 2004
36. The terms and conditions of services are also
laid down in the said rules."