Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 46 (0.27 seconds)
Dharo Oraon vs State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 15 January, 2024 cites

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

The mechanism and the guidelines for regularization of irregular employees has been clearly dealt with in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 but the same has not been considered, rather, the State has not come-out with any specific policy decision and are rejecting the claims of the employees in whimsical manner. Learned counsel further argued that though no right has accrued to the employees to claim regularization but in terms of amended rules of regularization of the year 2019, they have right to be considered in true letter and spirit. They cannot be discriminated and the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution should be adhered to. The mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution should be complied in true sense. The scheme is floated as the part of beneficial legislation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 4959 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

S. Narayana vs Md. Ahmedulla Khan And Ors on 8 May, 2006

17. On legal points, learned Advocate General refers several judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as High Courts. Referring to the judgment in the case of Uma Devi, learned Advocate General submits that regularization cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment and it does mean permanence in service. Citing the judgment in the case of S. Narayana Vs. Md. Ahmedulla Khan & Ors. (2006) 10 SCC 84, it was contended that regularization does not connote permanence and cannot be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of appointments. Regularizations are termed calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure only such defects as are attributable to methodology followed in making the appointments and even this Court 39 emphasized that when rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution are in force, no regularization is permissible in exercise of the executive powers of the Government under Article 162 thereof in contravention of the rules.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Director, Institute Of Management ... vs Smt. Pushpa Srivastava on 4 August, 1992

18. On the point of contractual appointment, learned Advocate General refers the judgment in the case of Director, Institute of Management Development U.P. Vs. Pushpa Srivastava, (1992) 4 SCC 33 to contend that when appointment is made on contract and ad hoc basis on consolidated pay for a fixed period, it cannot be terminated without notice and when the appointment came to an end by efflux of time, the appointee had no right to continue in the post and to claim regularization in service in the absence of any rule providing for regularization after the period of service.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 316 - S Mohan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next