Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.25 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Supreme Court Reports [1962] Supp.Dr. ... vs The Governing Body Of The Nalanda ... on 15 December, 1961
43. Normally, what is sought for by such temporary employees when they approach the court, is the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the employer, the State or its instrumentalities, to absorb them in permanent service or to allow them to continue. In this context, the question arises whether a mandamus could be issued in favour of such persons. At this juncture, it will be proper to refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur Vs. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College [(1962) Supp. 2 SCR 144]. That case arose out of a refusal to promote the writ petitioner therein as the Principal of a college. This Court held that in order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved party had a legal right under the statute or rule to enforce it. This classical position continues and a mandamus could not be issued in favour of the employees directing the government to make them permanent since the employees cannot show that they have an enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed or that the State has a legal duty to make them permanent.
The Secretary To Government vs R. Govindasamy on 4 April, 2008
6. The Honourable Supreme Court of India thereafter reiterated or re-emphasized the same principles in the case of Secretary to Government Vs. R.Govindasamy and others reported in [(2014) 4 SCC 769]. and it is relevant to extract Paragraph No.8 of the same:
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Daya Lal & Ors on 13 January, 2011
8.this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 1193, has considered the scope of regularisation of irregular or part-time appointments in all possible eventualities and laid down well-settled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay relevant in the context of the issues involved therein. The same are as under: