Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.29 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Manish Gupta vs President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti on 21 April, 2022
20. As observed above, here in this case, the petitioners
consciously and voluntarily entered into a contract which contains
specific terms regarding the tenure of appointment, and the said
clause is binding upon them. As far as Ext.P13 judgment rendered by
this Court in W.A.No.1441/2021 is concerned, the factual
circumstances therein were also different. That was a case in which
the University conducted a selection process for the post of Sweeper
cum Cleaner and the petitioners therein were included in the rank list.
However, they could not secure regular appointments having regard
to the limited number of sanctioned vacancies. Later, they were
engaged on temporary basis as Sweeper cum Cleaner on daily
WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 29
wages when a temporary need arose. When they were sought to be
substituted with fresh adhoc employees, a challenge was raised
before this Court and the learned Single Judge allowed the prayers
sought by them. Accordingly, the said Writ Appeal was filed in which
the decision of the learned Single Judge was upheld by following the
decision in Piara Singh's case (supra), Manish Gupta's case
(supra) etc.
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
16. Thus, it was specifically laid down that, if it is a contractual
appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the
contract, if it was an engagement or appointment on daily wages or
casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued.
Of course, it is true that, those observations were made when a case
WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 25
was considered seeking regularization of the employees who were
engaged on adhoc basis. But, in clear terms, it was laid down that,
beyond the period of contract, the employees concerned did not have
any right to continue. Of course, it is true that, the observations made
in Piara Singh's case (supra) to the effect that, the adhoc or
temporary employees should not be replaced by another adhoc
employee was not disagreed in Umadevi's case (supra). However, as
mentioned above, Piara Singh was a case in which the petitioners
were class III and IV employees who were initially appointed for six
months and were permitted to continue years together on the strength
of various orders.
Director, Institute Of Management ... vs Smt. Pushpa Srivastava on 4 August, 1992
10. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents
contended that, the petitioners do not have any vested right to seek
the reliefs sought for. According to him, the petitioners have
consciously and with open eyes entered into a contract with the
University, wherein the period of service was confined to a specified
period and upon completion of such period, the service would come
into an end, and therefore, they cannot seek any re-appointment or
continuance of their service beyond the period specified in the said
contracts. The respondents also raised contentions to justify the
reasons that prompted them to incorporate a clause in the fresh
notification that, the appointment of contract appointees who had
already been granted an appointment and had served for more than
four years, could be considered only in the absence of qualified
hands. Reliance was placed on the observations made by a Five
Judges Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v.
Umadevi and others [(2006)4 SCC 1], Director, Institute of
Management Development, U.P. v. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava
[(1992)4 SCC 33], Yogesh Mahajan v. Prof. R.C.Deka, Director, All
India Institute of Medical Sciences [(2018)3 SCC 218] Rajasthan
State Roadways Transport Corporation v. Paramjeet Singh
WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 21
[(2019)6 SCC 250] and Union Territory of Ladakh v Jammu and
Kashmir National Conference (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140).
Yogesh Mahajan vs Prof. R. C. Deka Director All India ... on 31 January, 2018
10. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents
contended that, the petitioners do not have any vested right to seek
the reliefs sought for. According to him, the petitioners have
consciously and with open eyes entered into a contract with the
University, wherein the period of service was confined to a specified
period and upon completion of such period, the service would come
into an end, and therefore, they cannot seek any re-appointment or
continuance of their service beyond the period specified in the said
contracts. The respondents also raised contentions to justify the
reasons that prompted them to incorporate a clause in the fresh
notification that, the appointment of contract appointees who had
already been granted an appointment and had served for more than
four years, could be considered only in the absence of qualified
hands. Reliance was placed on the observations made by a Five
Judges Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v.
Umadevi and others [(2006)4 SCC 1], Director, Institute of
Management Development, U.P. v. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava
[(1992)4 SCC 33], Yogesh Mahajan v. Prof. R.C.Deka, Director, All
India Institute of Medical Sciences [(2018)3 SCC 218] Rajasthan
State Roadways Transport Corporation v. Paramjeet Singh
WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 21
[(2019)6 SCC 250] and Union Territory of Ladakh v Jammu and
Kashmir National Conference (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140).
Rajasthan State Roadways Transport ... vs Paramjeet Singh on 3 May, 2019
10. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents
contended that, the petitioners do not have any vested right to seek
the reliefs sought for. According to him, the petitioners have
consciously and with open eyes entered into a contract with the
University, wherein the period of service was confined to a specified
period and upon completion of such period, the service would come
into an end, and therefore, they cannot seek any re-appointment or
continuance of their service beyond the period specified in the said
contracts. The respondents also raised contentions to justify the
reasons that prompted them to incorporate a clause in the fresh
notification that, the appointment of contract appointees who had
already been granted an appointment and had served for more than
four years, could be considered only in the absence of qualified
hands. Reliance was placed on the observations made by a Five
Judges Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v.
Umadevi and others [(2006)4 SCC 1], Director, Institute of
Management Development, U.P. v. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava
[(1992)4 SCC 33], Yogesh Mahajan v. Prof. R.C.Deka, Director, All
India Institute of Medical Sciences [(2018)3 SCC 218] Rajasthan
State Roadways Transport Corporation v. Paramjeet Singh
WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 21
[(2019)6 SCC 250] and Union Territory of Ladakh v Jammu and
Kashmir National Conference (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140).
Union Territory Of Ladakh vs Jammu And Kashmir National Conference on 6 September, 2023
10. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents
contended that, the petitioners do not have any vested right to seek
the reliefs sought for. According to him, the petitioners have
consciously and with open eyes entered into a contract with the
University, wherein the period of service was confined to a specified
period and upon completion of such period, the service would come
into an end, and therefore, they cannot seek any re-appointment or
continuance of their service beyond the period specified in the said
contracts. The respondents also raised contentions to justify the
reasons that prompted them to incorporate a clause in the fresh
notification that, the appointment of contract appointees who had
already been granted an appointment and had served for more than
four years, could be considered only in the absence of qualified
hands. Reliance was placed on the observations made by a Five
Judges Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v.
Umadevi and others [(2006)4 SCC 1], Director, Institute of
Management Development, U.P. v. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava
[(1992)4 SCC 33], Yogesh Mahajan v. Prof. R.C.Deka, Director, All
India Institute of Medical Sciences [(2018)3 SCC 218] Rajasthan
State Roadways Transport Corporation v. Paramjeet Singh
WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 21
[(2019)6 SCC 250] and Union Territory of Ladakh v Jammu and
Kashmir National Conference (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140).
Rattan Lal & Ors. Etc.Etc vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 16 August, 1985
In the said judgment, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to Rattan Lal and Others v.
State of Haryana and Others [(1985)4 SCC 43] and Hargurpratap
Singh's case (supra), held that the adhoc employees could not be
replaced by another adhoc employees and it can be replaced only by
another candidate who regularly appointed by following a regular
procedure prescribed. However, while carefully going through the
factual circumstances therein, it is to be noted that, the appointments
therein were made in a scheme named 'Janabhageerathi' a scheme
formulated by the State of Madhya Pradesh by which the
management of Government colleges were handed over to a
committee so as to ensure public participation in the Government
colleges. The said committee started the same self-financing courses
WP(C)Nos. 3613 of 2024 & Con.Cases 28
and the payments were to be made on contractual basis. From the
observations made in paragraph 12 of the said judgment, it is evident
that, the contention raised by the State of Madhya Pradesh that the
appointments were made as Guest Lectures and not as adhoc
employees were rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court being
convinced, after going through the notification therein that, the
persons concerned therein were appointed on adhoc basis.
Therefore, that is the difference in the factual circumstances which
require attention in this regard.