Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.38 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ms. Sunita Kumari D/O Shri Jagdish ... vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 4 July, 2012
We also find that decision in
(Shilpi Gupta's case) was based decision in OA No. 2525/2023
titled Anita Kumari vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. In
case of Anita Kumari ( Supra) a Writ Petition W.P.(C) 8501/2024,
CM APPL. 34962/2024 -Stay is pending consideration before the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court, wherein following order(s) have been
passed on 31.5.2024,
"11.Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the records, we dispose of the application by
directing that while the operation of the impugned order will
remain stayed during the pendency of the present petition, the
petitioner will maintain status quo qua the services of the
respondent as existing today. Consequently, her services will not be
dispensed with until the final disposal of the O.A. whereafter, the
parties will be bound by the orders passed by the learned
Tribunal/Court. "
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 19 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Dr. V.P. Chaturvedi And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 August, 1991
6.3 The case of the applicant does not match with the case of Dr. V
P Chaturvedi (supra) / Shobha Khandpal (supra) or for that matter
that of Om Prakash (Supra) as the applicant was hired on
contractual basis and he has not worked in the research
cadre/project.
Raj Ballam Singh @ Raj Ballam Prasad & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 20 April, 2018
3.10 The learned counsel for the respondents further relied upon
the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Raj Balam
Prasad & Ors vs. State of Bihar & Ors in SLP(C) No.31638/2016,
which is reproduced herein below:
Surendra Prasad Tewari vs Uttar Pradesh Rajya Krishi Utpadan ... on 8 September, 2006
27) In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the
appeal, which thus fails and is accordingly dismissed."
3.11 The learned counsel for the respondents further relied upon
the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Surendra
Prasad Tiwari vs. Uttar Padesh Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Parishad And Ors., which is reproduced herein below:
Delhi Development Horticulture ... vs Delhi Administration, Delhi And Ors on 4 February, 1992
"On careful analysis of the appointment orders, it is revealed that the
the work of a specified project. The appellant was engaged from time
to time to work on different projects and the last contract was dated
14.10.1991 and thereafter, the appellant was not appointed. The
appellant's appointment was purely a fixed term appointment. By no
stretch of imagination it could be said. that the appointment of the
appellant was made while following the procedure as laid down
under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. A three-Judge Bench of
this Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v.
Delhi Administration, Delhi & Ors., reported in [1992] 4 SCC 99,
observed as under:
Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. ... vs Electricity Inspector And E.T.I.O. & ... on 15 May, 2007
"34. We may, however, notice that recently the doctrine of legitimate
expectation has been applied by this Court in Southern Petrochemical
Page 16 of 31
C.P. No. 316/2024 in O.A.
No. 831/2023 and O.A.
Item No.13 &26 (Court -5) No. 2194/2023 with C.P.
No. 703/2023
Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector & ETIO and Others (2007) 5
SCC 447 and Jitendra Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Another
[(2008) 2 SCC 161] wherein a clear distinction has been made between
legitimate expectation and an anticipation.