Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (1.04 seconds)High Court Of Madhya Pradesh Thru. ... vs Satya Narayan Jhavar on 14 August, 2001
In such a situation the case of applicant for deemed confirmation is not sustainable in the light of the decision of the Apex Court on High Court of M. P. v. Satya Narayan Jhavar, (2001) 7 SCC 161, as despite expiry of probation period as well as extended period of probation till a specific order and a sine qua non of satisfactory performance has not been arrived at by the Competent Authority applicant's status remained as a probationer.
V.P. Ahuja vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 6 March, 2000
11. Relying upon the decision of Apex Court in V.P. Ahuja v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2000) 3 SCC 239 it is stated that if the order is casting stigma and punitive in nature the same is ex-facie illegal.
Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre For ... on 10 February, 1999
The condition precedent for application of the aforesaid precedent is that stigma should be reflected either from the order of reversion/discharge or from the Annexures referred to therein, though no straight jacket formula can be evolved to decide the question of stigma, yet in Dipti Prakash Banerjee's case (supra) the following observations have been made:
The State Of Punjab vs S. Bhagwan Singh Grewal on 16 March, 1967
44. If one has regard to the above, applying the test in the conspectus of the present case in the reversion order referring to the probation period as well as the extended period of probation on the basis of assessment arrived at by the DPC it has been observed that applicant was assessed not fit to be continued on the post of Master. The aforesaid, by no stretch of imagination can be termed as a stigmatic order. The "Apex Court in Bhagwan Singh's case (supra) held that even if the words 'unsatisfactory performance' are reflected in the order, yet stigma cannot be imputed. It is the assessment of performance of applicant which has formed the basis of reversion. This is not a stigma. The aforesaid order in the light of the aforesaid decision cannot be held to be stigmatic. Moreover, it is not the reply of respondents which would be considered and to be read to level only stigma as a justification in response to the averment of applicant regarding his satisfactory performance. Rebuttal to that with material to indicate unsatisfactory performance results in expression of particulars of motive as well as unsatisfactory performance of applicant which should not be construed as stigma. Stigma should be explicit in the order or in any of the referred Annexures which do not exist in the present case.
Commissioner Of Police Hubli And Anr vs R.S. More on 21 January, 2003
33. The Apex Court in Commissioner of Police, Hubli and Anr. v. R.S. More, (2003) 2 SCC 408 held as follows:
Shri Hari Chand vs Food Corporation Of India And Others on 14 February, 2001
34. High Court of Delhi in Hari Chand v. Food Corporation of India, 2001 VIAD (DELHI) 950 has held that period of probation if extendable mere expiry of the aforesaid period of probation would not confer deemed confirmation.
Municipal Corporation, Raipur vs Ashok Kumar Misra on 16 April, 1991
35. Apex Court in Municipal Corporation, Raipur v. Ashok Kumar Misra, (1991) 3 SCC 325, held that mere expiry of initial probation period would not automatically result in deemed confirmation which is a positive act depending upon the satisfactory completion of probation.
Md. Muzaffar Alam vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 31 October, 2000
36. If one has regard to the above, keeping in line the terms and conditions of applicant, in absence of any positive declaration as to successful completion of probation the status of applicant at the time of his reversion remained as a probationer and he cannot be treated to be deemed confirmed. The aforesaid rule has recently been upheld by the Apex Court in Mohd. Muzaffar Alam v. State of Bihar, 2002 SCC (L&S) 685 holding that if an employee is not bound to be confirmed on expiry of the statutory period of probation without any positive declaration.
Hari Chand Madan Gopal And Others vs State Of Punjab on 6 October, 1972
If there is an enquiry the facts and circumstances of the case will be looked into in order to find out whether the order is one of dismissal in substance (See Madan Gopal v. State of Punjab (1963) 3 S.C. R. 716).