Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.55 seconds)
Sh. I.K. Sukhija & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 July, 1997 cites

Direct Recruit Class Ii Engineering ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 May, 1990

The Tribunal was, therefore, wrong in holding that the case of the appellants was governed by the corollary to the rule stated by this Court as Proposition `A' in Direct Recruits case (supra). The appellants are in a better position than the situation contemplated by Proposition `B' in that case. If the appointees contemplated by Proposition `B' are held entitled to the benefit of the period of officiating service we see no reason why the appellants should not be held entitled to such a benefit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 915 - L M Sharma - Full Document

A.P.M. Mayakutty Etc vs Secretary, Public Service Department, ... on 8 February, 1977

The learned counsel for the respondents had relied upon the decisions of this Court in A.P.M. Mayakutty vs. Secretary Public Service Department 1977 (2) SCR 937, D.N. Agawal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1990 (2) SCR 131 and Masood Akhtar Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1990 (4) SCC 24 but they have no application to the facts of these cases. In the first two cases it was found by this Court that the appointments were ad hoc and by way of stop-gap or emergency arrangement and, therefore, the appointees were not entitled to the benefit of the period of their ad hoc service for the purpose of counting their seniority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

D.N. Agrawal And Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors on 23 March, 1990

The learned counsel for the respondents had relied upon the decisions of this Court in A.P.M. Mayakutty vs. Secretary Public Service Department 1977 (2) SCR 937, D.N. Agawal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1990 (2) SCR 131 and Masood Akhtar Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1990 (4) SCC 24 but they have no application to the facts of these cases. In the first two cases it was found by this Court that the appointments were ad hoc and by way of stop-gap or emergency arrangement and, therefore, the appointees were not entitled to the benefit of the period of their ad hoc service for the purpose of counting their seniority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 20 - P B Sawant - Full Document
1