Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (1.04 seconds)Management Committee Of Montfort ... vs Shri Vijay Kumar And Ors on 12 September, 2005
Therefore, in view of the categorical ratio of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Management Committee of Montfort Senior Secondary
School Vs. Sh. Vijay Kumar and Ors. (supra) and in view of the facts of this
case the respondent No. 1‟s services from the inception cannot be taken as
only contractual in nature and would be statutory in nature. Once the services
are statutory in nature, and admittedly the respondent No. 1 has not been
removed by following the provisions of conducting an enquiry and passing of
an order by the Disciplinary Authority as required under the Rules 118 to 120
of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, the respondent No. 1‟s services
cannot be said to have been legally terminated. Respondent No. 1, therefore,
continues to be in services.
Hamdard Public School vs Directorate Of Education & Anr. on 25 July, 2013
The judgment in the case
of Smt. Veena Gupta W/o Shri Lalit Gupta (supra) therefore does not
apply to the facts of the present case more so after the ratios of the
judgments of this Court in the cases of Hamdard Public School (supra) and
Army Public School (supra), and which ratios squarely apply to the facts of
the present case.
Army Welfare Education Society & Anr vs Shyam Dutt & Anr on 29 October, 2015
The relevant paras of the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Army Welfare Education Society & Anr.
Vs. Manju Nautiyal & Anr. (supra) are paras 14 and 16, and which
observes that short term tenure appointment cannot be used as a tool of
oppression. These paras 14 and 16 read as under:-