Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.63 seconds)C.S.H.N. Murthy vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 17 December, 1999
11 In C.S.H.N.Murthy vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1
supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the third respondent,
the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court held as follows:
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 1 in Orissa Education Act, 1969 [Entire Act]
The State Of Orissa And Another vs Ram Narayan Das on 8 September, 1960
12 The facts and circumstances of the case on hand are
identical to the facts and circumstances of the above case.
13 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
having regard to the principle enunciated in the case cited supra,
this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition is liable
to be dismissed
14 Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed giving liberty to
the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority as provided
under Sections 80 and 81 (2) of the Act and pursue his grievance.
No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this
writ petition shall also stand dismissed.
Keshav Memorial Educational Society, ... vs Government Of A.P., Education ... on 13 July, 1999
7 The learned counsel for the third respondent also relied on
the principle laid down in C.S.H.N.Murthy vs. Government of
4
Andhra Pradesh1 and Keshav Memorial Educational Society,
Hyderabad vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Education
Department, Hyderabad2 in support of his contentions.
8 As the petitioner is appointed on probation, the termination
of the petitioner does not cast a stigma and even if the termination
is held to be not legal, the petitioner would be entitled to only one
month salary and cannot claim to be continued as permanent
employee. The order of termination of probationer does not
amount to dismissal and being a simple order of discharge of the
employee on probation, the question of issuing notice and
conducting enquiry does not arise.
1