Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.28 seconds)
Page No.# 1/55 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 16 September, 2025 cites

Nihal Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 7 August, 2013

In the case of Nihal Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, with regard to the aspect that in the absence of sanctioned posts the State cannot be compelled to absorb the persons like the appellants into the services of the State, held that we can only say that posts are to be created by the State depending upon the need to employ people having regard to various functions the State undertakes to discharge.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 491 - Full Document

State Of Orissa & Anr vs Mamata Mohanty on 9 February, 2011

In the case of Mamata Mohanty (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that at one time this Court had been of the view that calling the names from Employment Exchange would curb to certain extent the menace of nepotism and corruption in public employment. But, later on, came to the conclusion that some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly. Even if the names of candidates are requisitioned from Employment Exchange, in addition thereto it is mandatory on the part of the employer to invite applications from all eligible candidates from the open market by advertising the vacancies in Page No.# 51/55 newspapers having wide circulation or by announcement in Radio and Television as merely calling the names from the Employment Exchange does not meet the requirement of the said Article of the Constitution. It has been held which is reproduced here in under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 995 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

K. Anbazhagan And Etc. vs The Registrar General High Court Of ... on 13 August, 2018

41. Perusal of the above case laws, clearly deduced the principles of law that ad-hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad-hoc employee. No contract employee has a right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time. On the expiry of the contract no obligation can be fastened on the employer to necessarily extend the said contract. If an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order. A right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin. The essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. No person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. The judgments also Page No.# 53/55 distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews. The State continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed and same is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation. Cases have to be considered in its contextual perspective and not only from the point of view of the interest of the State, financial or otherwise and the interest of the employees is also required to be kept in mind.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 9 - A Bhushan - Full Document
1   2 Next