Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Delhi Development Horticulture ... vs Delhi Administration, Delhi And Ors on 4 February, 1992
In Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi & Ors., reported in (1992-II-LLJ 452) the petitioners were employed on daily wage basis under the Jawahar Rojgar Yojna by the authority. The scheme was enacted for the purpose of tackling the problem of poverty and as soon as the object was fulfilled it came to an end. When the services of the petitioners were sought to be terminated, they approached the Supreme Court by filing a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India and prayed for directions against the authority for regularisation of their services and absorption. Reliance was placed on some of the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court. Considering those decisions, the Supreme Court held that if the appointment of the petitioners were made under the scheme, the petitioners could claim benefits only under the scheme. To get an employment under the scheme, and to claim on the basis of said employment, a right to regularisation is to frustrate the scheme itself. No Court can be a party to such exercise. According to the Court, it was never the intention of the scheme to extend right of employment in favour of the petitioners. If such a right is to be ensured, in the opinion of the Court, it would do more harm than good. The Supreme Court, however, did to rest the matter there. The Court took into account the fact that there are certain statutes like Employment Exchange Act which requires recruitment on the basis of registration in the Employment Exchange and in pursuance of the provisions of the said Act, interested candidates should get their names registered for the purpose of getting regular employment/appointment through Employment Exchange only. The Court should not ignore the provisions of the statute. The Court, speaking through Sawant, J., then made the following pertinent observations (p. 459) :
State Of Punjab And Others vs Surinder Kumar And Others on 20 December, 1991
Almost in similar circumstances, a question arose before the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Surinder Kumar & Ors., reported in 1992 (1) SCC 489. In that case, some part-timers approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for getting full-time work. The High Court allowed the petition by a 'cryptic' order and continued the petitioners in service. State of Punjab approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court took into account the fact that pursuant to the instructions issued by the Education Department, appointment of the petitioners were made as part-time lecturers. The petitioners accepted the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment orders and joined the service. The Court did not find any valid reason as to why specific terms on which the appointments were made could not be enforced against the petitioners. The Supreme Court also observed that there were no sufficient grounds on the basis of which absorption and permanency was granted by the High Court in favour of the petitioners. The Court, therefore, set aside the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. Etc on 10 July, 1985
3. Mrs. Dawawala for Mr. P. B. Majmudar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, raised a number of contentions. She submitted that the petitioner is working since 1981 and thus he has completed a number of years in service with the hospital. The break which is given can be said to be "artificial break" as held in various decisions of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court as also of this Court which cannot come in the way of the petitioner in getting permanency benefits and regularisation of services. She further submitted that services of a number of persons similarly situated to that of the petitioner have been regularised and they have been made permanent, by not making the petitioner permanent and not regularising his services, respondent authorities have acted arbitrarily, discriminatingly and unreasonably and the said action is thus violative of Arts. 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India. She also submitted that even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments without admitting it that regular appointment can always be made to the post of peon, there was no earthly reason for the respondent authorities not to allow the petitioner to compete with other similarly situated candidates and therefore, in any case, to the extent, the action of the respondent authorities requires to be interfered with by this Court. Reliance was also placed on a number of decisions of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court as well as of this Court including the decisions in the case of Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. reported in (AIR) 1986 SC 180, Sushilkumar Yadunath Jha v. Union of India & Anr., reported in (1987-I-LLJ-7) Mariamben Amirbhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in [(1985 (2)] XXVI (2) GLR 946 and the decision of R. C. Mankad, J. in Spl. C.A. No. 711 of 1985 decided on July 3, 1985.
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1