Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.24 seconds)
Anil Mohan vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 18 February, 1998 cites

State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Piara Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 12 August, 1992

3. The learned senior counsel Mr. Mukul Rohtagi submits that whatever be the nature of the order binding on the employee once he had been in service of the particular employer for number of years his services should be regularised. Only condition could be that he should satisfy the qualification prescribed for the post. The learned Senior counsel accepted that the petitioner would satisfy the qualification prescribed for, he has secured B.Com degree having statistics as a subject in the B.Com Degree. The learned senior counsel referred to the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Piara Singh and Ors. .
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 1473 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Bhagwati Prasad And Ors vs Delhi State Mineral Development ... on 15 December, 1989

5. Learned Senior counsel submits that the petitioner has served for 7 years and he has very good record of service and for any other employment under Government he has crossed the age limit and he cannot apply. The learned senior counsel also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation wherein also the same proposition is reiterated by the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 392 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Jacob M. Puthuparambil And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Kerala Water Authority And Ors. Etc. Etc on 19 September, 1990

Because the six months' period was coming to an end on 28th February 1991, she preferred the writ petition a few days before and prayed for mandates which was granted by the learned Judge under the impugned judgment. The question is whether the directions are valid in law. To our mind, it is clear that where the appointment is contractual and by efflux of time, the appointment comes to an end, the respondent could have no ;right to continue in the post. Once this conclusion is arrived at, what requires to be examined is, in view of the services of the respondent being continued from time to time on 'ad hoc' basis for more than a year whether she is entitled to regularisation? The answer should be in the negative. However, reliance is placed by learned counsel on behalf of the respondent on the case in Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 315 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document
1