Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)2Ec.To Govt.,School Education ... vs Thiru R.Govindaswamy & Ors on 21 February, 2014
3. On the contrary, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that, originally, the petitioner was appointed as Part-Time Employee and therefore, she is not entitled to seek for regularisation of service with retrospective effect, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.2.2006. Further, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 has placed a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Civil Appeal Nos.2726-2729 of 2014 with Civil Appeal Nos.2730-2731 of 2014, dated 21.2.2014 in Secretary to Government, School Education Department vs. Thiru.R.Govindasamy and others reported in CDJ Law Journal 2014 SC 146. Based on the aforesaid judgments, the learned standing counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Daya Lal & Ors on 13 January, 2011
7. This Court in State of Rajasthan & Others v. Daya Lal & Others., 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:
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1