Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.93 seconds)
Anil Motiram Ingle And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 20 March, 2025 cites

Court In The Case Of Secretary, State Of ... vs . Uma on 9 April, 2015

"7. When we consider the prevailing scenario, it is painful to note that the decision in Uma Devi (Supra) has not been properly understood and rather wrongly applied by various State Governments. We have called for the data in the instant case to ensure as to how many employees were working on contract basis or ad-hoc basis or daily-wage basis in different State departments. We can take judicial notice that widely aforesaid practice is being continued. Though this Court has emphasised that incumbents should be appointed on regular basis as per rules but new devise of making appointment on contract basis has been adopted, employment is offered on daily wage basis etc. in exploitative forms.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 1 - Cited by 2142 - Full Document

S.B. Shahane And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 21 April, 1995

53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the 53 wp 3084.16 light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Sachin Ambadas Dawale vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 October, 2013

In case of Sachin Dhawale and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (supra), the petitioners were lecturers in different departments of the Government polytechnics. They were in service for the period ranging from three to ten years. They were not given benefit of permanency. Their appointments were made by following due procedure and with the recommendation of the selection committee. In that context the observations were made in paragraph Nos. 10, 12, 13, 16 and 17. The facts of the case at hand are peculiar and different. In the present case appointments are not on sanctioned posts.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 42 - Z A Haq - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next