Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 39 (0.54 seconds)Section 26 in The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
B.N. Nagarajan And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 3 May, 1979
In Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], the Constitution
Bench clarified that there may be cases where irregular
appointments (not illegal appointments), as explained in State of
Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa [AIR 1967 SC 1071], R.N.
Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah [(1972) 1 SCC 409] and B.N.
Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka [(1979) 4 SCC 507] of duly
qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been
made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or
more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of
tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such
employees may have to be considered on merits, in the light of
the principles settled by the court in the cases referred to in the
judgment of the Constitution Bench and in the light of the said
judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State
2025:KER:68685
47
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
Governments and their instrumentalities were directed to take
steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of
such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or
more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the
courts or of tribunals and to further ensure that regular
recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts
that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees
or daily wagers are being now employed. The Union of India, the
State Governments and their instrumentalities were directed to
set in motion the process within six months from the date of the
judgment. The Constitution Bench clarified that any regularisation,
if already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based
on the judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the
constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent
those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. In
paragraph 54 of the decision, [@ page 42 of SCC], the Constitution
Bench clarified that those decisions which run counter to the
principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running
counter to what has been held herein, will stand denuded of their
status as precedents.
THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ACT, 1986
Section 14 in The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Piara Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 12 August, 1992
20. By the order of reference in State of Karnataka v.
Umadevi (2) [(2006) 4 SCC 44] the conflicting opinions
between the Three-Judge Bench decisions in Ashwani
Kumar v. State of Bihar [(1997) 2 SCC 1], State of
Haryana v. Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118] and Dharwad
District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Association
v. State of Karnataka [(1990) 2 SCC 396] on the one hand
and State of H.P. v. Suresh Kumar Verma [(1996) 7 SCC
562], State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar [(1992) 1 SCC
489] and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka [(1979) 4
SCC 507] on the other, was referred for consideration by a Five-
Judge Bench (Constitution Bench).
Manish Gupta vs President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti on 21 April, 2022
In Manish Gupta v. Jan Bhagidari Samiti [(2022)
15 SCC 540], another decision relied on by the learned counsel
for the appellants-petitioners, a Two-Judge Bench of the Apex
Court was dealing with a case in which the State of Madhya
Pradesh, vide notification dated 30.09.1996, started a scheme
known as "Jan Bhagidari Scheme", as per which, the Government
had decided that the local management of the Government
colleges was to be handed over to a Committee, namely, Jan
Bhagidari Samiti, to ensure public participation in the Government
colleges. Vide Government order dated 05.10.2001, the State
Government decided to commence some courses on a self-
financing basis. For such courses, the appointments were to be
made on a contractual/tenure basis, and the honorarium of the
2025:KER:68685
50
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
teachers and other staff was to be decided by the said Committee.
In pursuance to the said Scheme, an advertisement came to be
published in the year 2014, for the appointment of teachers as
guest faculty, for the academic year 2014-15 in different colleges.
The writ petitioners, having the requisite qualifications, applied to
the advertised posts, in pursuance to the said advertisement.
Upon their selection by the duly constituted Committee, they were
appointed. After the end of the academic year, they were
discontinued from service. Fresh advertisements were issued for
the next academic year 2015-16. Being aggrieved thereby, the
writ petitioners approached the High Court. The writ petition was
allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated
29.09.2016 in Writ Petition (Civil)No.4716 of 2016, whereby it was
ordered that the writ petitioners would continue to work on their
respective posts till regular selections were made. It was also
ordered that the writ petitioners were entitled to get the salary in
accordance with the UGC Circular issued in February 2010. Being
aggrieved by the judgment, the State Government, as well as the
President of the respective Jan Bhagidari Samitis, preferred writ
appeals before the Division Bench.
Pawan Kumar vs Union Of India on 2 May, 2022
In Pawan Kumar v. Union of India [2016 SCC
OnLine HP 2696 : 2017 (3) KLT SN 47], a decision relied on
by the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin University of Science
and Technology, a Full Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court
considered the question whether an employee, who is appointed
purely on contractual basis for a fixed tenure in accordance with a
non-statutory scheme, i.e., Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health
2025:KER:68685
62
W.A.No.1664, 1694, 1707, 1716,
1736 and 1842 of 2024
Scheme, which provides for appointment of staff on contract basis,
can claim that his appointment be made co-terminus with the
scheme or in the alternative his services be continued till the age
of superannuation or would his services be liable to be terminated
on the expiry of the period of contract, as provided for in the
scheme. As per Para.8(d) of the said scheme, the employment of
the staff will be entirely contractual in nature and will normally be
for a period of two years at the maximum, subject to review of
their conduct and performance after twelve months. In pursuance
of the said scheme, all the petitioners have been appointed on
different dates on a contractual basis, and their services have been
dispensed with, on cessation of their contractual period. Feeling
aggrieved, they have filed the writ petitions. Before the Full Bench,
the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that ad
hoc or temporary employees cannot be replaced by other ad
hoc or temporary employees and placed heavy reliance upon the
observation made in the decision of the Three-Judge Bench of the
Apex Court in Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118], more
particularly, paragraph 46 that an ad hoc or temporary employee
should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee;
Rattan Lal & Ors. Etc.Etc vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 16 August, 1985
In Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana [(1985) 4 SCC
43], the question which came up for consideration before a Two-
Judge Bench of the Apex Court was whether it is open to the State
of Haryana to appoint teachers on an ad hoc basis at the
commencement of an academic year and terminate their services
before the commencement of the next summer vacation, or
earlier, to appoint them again on an ad hoc basis at the
commencement of next academic year and to terminate their
services before the commencement of the succeeding summer
vacation or earlier and to continue to do so year after year. A
substantial number of such ad hoc appointments were made in the
existing vacancies which have remained unfilled for three to four
years.