Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (1.24 seconds)
S.Muthulakshmi vs The Chairman on 9 July, 2019 cites

State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Daya Lal & Ors on 13 January, 2011

8. This Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 1193, has considered the scope of regularisation of irregular or part-time appointments in all possible eventualities and laid down well-settled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay relevant in the context of the issues involved therein. The same are as under:(SCC P. 435,para 12) “(i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the http://www.judis.nic.in process of selection which does not go to the 23 root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 869 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1   2 Next