Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.31 seconds)State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Piara Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 12 August, 1992
This appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time up to July 2001. The Company, without taking necessary steps to appoint a whole time Medical practitioner, cannot issue a newspaper publication on 09.06.2001 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment again as Visiting Medical Officers on the same terms and conditions. This act of the Company is contrary to Section 45 of the Act and Rule 92 of the Rules. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Piara Singh and Ors. held, that an ad-hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad-hoc or temporary employee, he must be replaced only by a regular selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority. In view of this dictum of the Apex Court, the action of the Company in issuing the newspaper publication to appoint another Visiting Medical officer on retainership and on temporary basis in place of the petitioner who is also a Visiting Medical Officer on retainership and on temporary basis is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the impugned newspaper publication dated 09.06.2001, Annexure D to the writ petition is liable to be quashed.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Factories Act, 1948
The Companies Act, 1956
T.I. Cycles Of India vs E.S.I.C. on 5 August, 1976
1. T.I. Cycles of India v. E.S.I.C., Madras 1977(2) LLJ 222
1