Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.51 seconds)
Abhishek Kaushik vs Engineering Deptt., Ut Chandigarh on 17 October, 2023 cites

Court In The Case Of Secretary, State Of ... vs . Uma on 9 April, 2015

IV. In view of the provisions of Punjab Recruitment Rules of 2005, it was resolved to fill up vacancies on contract basis till regular arrangement is made. Applicant is continuously 7 working with the approval of competent authorities i.e. the Chief Engineer and the Worthy Advisor to Administrator and therefore, the appointment of applicant cannot be termed as illegal or irregular, as per Constitutional Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Uma Devi and Ors. reported as 2006 (4) SCC 1. The facts clearly show that applicant has been on roll of the department for a period of more than 10 years. She has served the department, as per terms and conditions of appointment on minimum salary with ardent hope that later or sooner she may be considered for regularization as her selection was as per requirement of Chandigarh Administration, through proper channel, inasmuch as the advertisement issued was followed by interview and medical fitness test. Since applicant was selected through proper channel and was working against sanctioned post of SDE in the respondent department and her appointment was constantly approved by the competent authorities i.e. the Chief Engineer and Advisor to the Administrator, she submitted representations dated 08.07.2019 and dated 02.09.2019 seeking regularization of her contractual appointment. However, said representations did not receive any response from the 8 department. Lastly, she submitted representation dated 06.01.2020 again to the Advisor, UT Chandigarh, praying for regularization of her service, but again without any response (Annexure A-7).
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 1 - Cited by 2142 - Full Document

Aminder Bains @ Mohinder Kaur And Ors vs Ut Of Chandigarh And Ors on 19 July, 2022

In the grounds for relief, the applicant has submitted that i. The applicant has been appointed by positive act of selection and has worked continuously from 2011 till date and her claim for regularization is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Kaur and others vs. UT. Chandigarh & Ors. decided on 17.10.1995 and judgment in the case of Guneeta Chadha vs. UOI & Ors. and Dr. Anjali Gupta vs. Administrator UT Chandigarh OA No.93-CH-2009 decided on 17.08.2010 which has been upheld up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. ii. It is well settled preposition in service jurisprudence that if a contractual employee continues to work for a substantial period of time, he requires to be given preference at the time of regular appointment to the said post. In the present case, the applicant has already qualified the selection process, therefore, once applicant has already cleared the criteria as prescribed in advertisement, she should be considered for regularization of service. The action of the respondents in advertising the six vacancies of Assistant 9 Engineer (Design) to replace the applicant is, thus, clearly illegal and arbitrary and therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Ami Lal Bhat vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 July, 1997

12. It is further submitted by respondents that the maximum age limit prescribed for filling up the vacancies meant for direct recruitment is 35 years as per notified recruitment rules dated 24.06.2020 (ANNEXURE R I) which has also been mentioned in the advertisement No.18/2021 published by the Union Public Service Commission. However the applicant is overage by 4 years and is not eligible for applying to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer (Civil) and as such cannot be allowed to participate in the recruitment process. Respondents have relied upon Dr. Ami Lal Bhat Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. [(1997) 6 SCC 614], the law is stated in the following terms:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 138 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Union Public Service Commission vs Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela & Others on 2 February, 2006

14. Respondent No.5, UPSC has filed a short reply on 17 12.10.2022 submitting therein that the applicant has filed this Original Application with a prayer to issue direction to the respondents to consider her case for regularization in view of judgments of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in various cases mentioned therein and that she be held entitled for age relaxation for the period of her total contractual service in regular selection process. The answering respondent (Union Public Service Commission) sets in motion the process of recruitment by advertising the posts strictly in conformity with the notified recruitment rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The issue of relaxation in age to contractual employees stands settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Public Service Commission vs Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela & Others (Appeal (civil) 933 of 2006) decided on 2 February, 2006 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that employment under the Government is a matter of status and not a contract even though the acquisition of such a status may be preceded by a contract, namely, an offer of appointment is accepted by the employee. The rights and obligations are not determined by the contract of the two parties but by statutory rules which are framed by the Government in exercise of power conferred by Article 309 18 of Constitution and the service rules can be unilaterally altered by the rule making authority, namely, the Government. It was held that "we are clearly of the opinion that respondent no.1 cannot be said to be a Government servant as he was working on contract basis and therefore, he was not eligible for any relaxation in upper age limit. The view taken by the High Court is clearly erroneous in law and is liable to be set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment and order dated 13.12.2002 of the High Court is set aside and the Writ Petition filed by respondent No.1 is dismissed." (Annexure R-1).
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 498 - G P Mathur - Full Document
1   2 Next