Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.25 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Societies Registration Act, 1860
Narendra Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 August, 2018
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in
the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir (supra) has clearly
held at paragraph-19 that even if the appointment process did
not involve open competitive selection, the appointment would
be treated as irregular and not illegal. The impugned order has
been passed treating the appointment of the petitioners to be
illegal as no advertisement was issued.
Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs Union Of India Thr Its Secretary & Anr on 16 February, 2015
We have referred to the length of time the writ petitioners
remained under suspension and, therefore, in view of the ratio laid
down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar
Choudhary (supra), we do not want to interfere with the order of the
learned First Court so far as quashing of the order of suspension is
concerned.
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the
High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non-suit the appellants is
misplaced.
R.S. Garg vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 27 July, 2006
In
R.S. Garg v. State of U.P., this Court held that appointments made
within sanctioned strength, even if temporary or irregular, do not
automatically become illegal unless shown to be in violation of
statutory rules. There is no evidence or even a finding that the posts
were not available or were created in violation of recruitment rules.
Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 20 September, 1990
In Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P, this Court has
emphasized that the State, even in contractual or administrative
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1751
14
2025:JHHC:34926
matters, cannot act arbitrarily and must be guided by constitutional
values. These observations gain special relevance in cases where
authorities, rather than conducting granular scrutiny, proceed to
cancel entire appointments in a sweeping manner.
Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra & Ors vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 19 February, 2014
19. The judgment in Renu³ does not preclude, as a principle of law,
the framing of an appropriate scheme of regularisation in appropriate
situations meeting the norms spelt out in Umadevi (3) and the
decisions which have followed. Dealing with a scheme framed for
regularisation, this Court in Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra v. State of
Orissa held as follows: (Amarendra Kumar case12, SCC pp. 607, 609
& 610, paras 38, 43 & 45)
"38. Equally important is the fact that even after declaring the
true legal position on the subject and even after deprecating
the practice of appointing people by means other than
legitimate, this Court felt that those who had served for ten
years or so may be put to extreme hardship if they were to be
discharged from service and, therefore, directed the
formulation of a scheme for their regularisation. This was no
doubt a one-time measure, but so long as the appointment
sought to be regularised was not illegal, the scheme
envisaged by para 53 of the decision extracted above
permitted the State to regularise such employees. Dr Dhavan
argued that the appellant Stipendiary Engineers had, by the
time the decision in Umadevi (3) case was pronounced,
qualified for the benefit of a scheme of regularisation having
2
2017 (3) SCC 410
15
2025:JHHC:34926
put in ten years as ad hoc Assistant Engineers and fifteen
years if their tenure was to be counted from the date of their
employment as Stipendiary Engineers. He contended that
even in the absence of a Validation Act, Stipendiary
Engineers appointed on ad hoc basis as Assistant Engineers,
who had worked for nearly ten years to the full satisfaction of
the State Government would have been entitled to
regularisation of their services in terms of any such scheme.