Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.65 seconds)Article 235 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh Thru. ... vs Satya Narayan Jhavar on 14 August, 2001
In the case of High Court of M.P. Vs. Satya Narayan Jhavar, (2001) 7 SCC 161 page 173, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the matter of confirmation. Rule 24 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Servants (Classification Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955 was interpreted by the Apex Court. Relevant part of Rule 24(1) is being reproduced below:-
State Of Punjab vs Dharam Singh on 2 February, 1968
In the case of State of Punjab Vs. Dharam Singh reported in AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1210, rule prescribed the maximum period of probation. Court came to the conclusion that employee allowed to continue for the post on completion of the maximum period of probation have been confirmed in the post by implication.
Wasim Beg vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 5 March, 1998
Similar view has been taken in the cases of Wasim Beg Vs. State of U.P. [(1998) 3 SCC 321], Om Prakash Maurya Vs. U.P. Coop. Sugar Factories Federation [1986 Supp.
Om Prakash Maurya vs U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories ... on 9 May, 1986
Similar view has been taken in the cases of Wasim Beg Vs. State of U.P. [(1998) 3 SCC 321], Om Prakash Maurya Vs. U.P. Coop. Sugar Factories Federation [1986 Supp.
M.K. Agarwal vs Gurgaon Gramin Bank And Ors. on 20 November, 1987
SCC 95, M.K. Agarwal Vs. Gurgaon Gramin Bank [1987 Supp.
State Of Gujarat vs Akhilesh C. Bhargav & Ors on 26 August, 1987
SCC 643 and State of Gujarat Vs. Akhilesh C. Bhargav [(1987) 4 SCC 482.
Jai Kishan vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr on 10 April, 1995
In the case of Jai Kishan Vs. Commissioner of Police [1995 Supp. (3) SCC 364], similar rule was considered. The relevant rule is being reproduced below:-
Mohd. Salman vs Committee Of Management & Ors on 8 September, 2011
In the case of Mohd. Salman Vs. Committee of Management [(2011) 12 SCC 308], Rule 26 was interpreted and it was found that deeming provision would not apply. Although, period of probation shall be one year extendable by one more year. It was held that an order of confirmation was necessary.