Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.16 seconds)
Dilip Kumar Mendali vs Accountant General (G And Ssa) Odisha ... on 3 February, 2023 cites

Murli S. Deora vs Union Of India And Ors on 2 November, 2001

The applicant has filed this OA seeking to quash the order rejecting his representation for regularization taking into consideration his three years casual engagement in Group-D post and consequently for a direction to the respondents to regularize his service against any Group-D as per DPA R O.M. 49014/19184-Estt(C)/Dt. 26.10.1984. The respondents filed their counter contesting the case of the applicant and the applicant has also filed rejoinder. By applying the decision of the High Court of Orissa dated 11.07.2005 in WP(C) No. 4601 of 2003 (S.Bhaskar Dora Vs. UOI & Ors), the Division Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 06.08.2004, dismissed the OA for lack of jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Amarkant Rai vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 13 March, 2015

5. It is seen that the date of birth of the applicant is 14.06.1975. According to the applicant he was engaged on casual basis on 15.02.2008. As per the rules, the upper age limit for appointment to government service is 27 years. Thus, even by the time the applicant was engaged on casual basis, he was overaged by three years even by granting age relaxation of three years as an OBC candidate and on the last date of receipt of application he became overaged by five years as an OBC candidate and even granting necessary relaxation to the extent of his casual service he was still overaged. We have perused the DPAR O.M. 49014/19184-Estt(C)/Dt. 26.10.1984 wherein it is stated that those appointed through employment exchange and possessing two years casual service are eligible for appointment to regular post without further reference to the employment exchange and those recruited directly without reference to employment exchange should register and then put in two years service before becoming eligible for regular appointment if nominated by employment exchange. We do not see as to how the above circular is applicable to the case of the applicant. The Circular provides eligibility for appointment but in the instant case the applicant was ineligible as per the rules at the time he was appointed as causal basis or even at the time when the process of 6 O.A.No. 260/00768 of 2012 appointment started. We have also gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amarkant Rai (supra). It is seen that appellant therein was appointed temporarily in Class IV post of Night Guard, on daily wages vide Office Order dated 04.06.1983 issued by Principal, Ramashray Baleshwar College (for short "College"), Dalsang Sarai, affiliated to Lalit Narayan Mithila University(for short "University"), Bihar. The University vide letter dated 04.07.1985 took a decision to regularize the persons who worked for more than 240 days, and as per the letter dated 30.03.1987, as per which employees who have been working for a period for more than one year need to be regularized. The Principal of the College again vide letters dated 08.01.2002 and 12.07.2004 recommended for absorption of the appellant against the two vacant posts. Hence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed for regularization. In the instant case, as discussed above, neither the engagement of the applicant was in accordance with the rules nor he was sponsored through employment exchange. Also, by the time the applicant was engaged on casual basis, he was overaged as also during the time of selection process even after granting necessary age relaxation. Thus, facts of both the cases being different and distinct, the decision has no application to the case in hand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 755 - R Banumathi - Full Document

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

Similarly, we have gone through the case of M.L.Kesari (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court directed for consideration of the case of the applicants therein taking into consideration the observation made of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 53 of the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors Vs Umadevi And Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1. In the instant case, the case of the applicant does not come within the parameter of observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 53 of the said decision as the applicant had not worked for 10 years continuous casual service. Hence, the case of M.L.Kesari cited by the applicant is also not applicable herein.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1834 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

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

Similarly, we have gone through the case of M.L.Kesari (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court directed for consideration of the case of the applicants therein taking into consideration the observation made of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 53 of the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors Vs Umadevi And Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1. In the instant case, the case of the applicant does not come within the parameter of observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 53 of the said decision as the applicant had not worked for 10 years continuous casual service. Hence, the case of M.L.Kesari cited by the applicant is also not applicable herein.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 1670 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document
1