Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (0.40 seconds)
Delhi Jal Board vs Workman Of The Erstwhile Delhi Water ... on 7 February, 2006 cites

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

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the directions given in paragraph 6 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (supra) wherein directions were issued to regularise employees who had put in three years service cannot be treated as a precedent. Such a direction was given on its own peculiar facts and it does not lay down any principle of law that all employees who had put in three years of service should be confirmed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 392 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

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

In State of Haryana v. Piara Singh , this Court noted that the normal rule is recruitment through the prescribed agency but due to administrative exigencies, an ad hoc or temporary appointment may be made. In such a situation, this Court held that efforts should always be made to replace such ad hoc or temporary employees by regularly selected employees, as early as possible. Therefore, this Court did not appear to have intended to lay down as a general rule that in every category of ad hoc appointment, if the ad hoc appointee continued for long period, the rules of recruitment should be relaxed and the appointment by regularisation be made. Thus considered, we have no hesitation to hold that the direction of the Division Bench is clearly illegal and the learned single Judge is right in directing the State Government to notify the vacancies to the PSC and the PSC should advertise and make recruitment of the candidates in accordance with the rules.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 1473 - B P Reddy - Full Document

P.U. Joshi & Ors., Union Of India & Ors vs The Accountant General, Ahmedabad, & ... on 19 December, 2002

21. Creation and abolition of posts, appointments, fixation of pay scales,regularization etc. are a purely executive function vide P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Ors. . Hence this court cannot issue orders for regularization. Also we cannot issue any direction that a post be created to absorb the petitioner. These are all executive, not judicial functions. There is broad separation of powers under our Constitution, and it is not proper for one organ of the State to encroach into the domain of another organ.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 558 - D Raju - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next