Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.91 seconds)
Mr. Shuman Mukherjee vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd on 30 October, 2013 cites

State Of Punjab vs Dharam Singh on 2 February, 1968

46. On a clear analysis of the above enunciated law, particularly, the Seven Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Samsher Singh (supra) and three-Judge Bench judgments, which are certainly the larger Benches and are binding on us, the courts have taken the view with reference to the facts and relevant rules involved in those cases that the principle of automatic or deemed confirmation would not be attracted. The pith and substance of the stated principles of law is that it will be the facts and the rules, which will have to be examined by the courts as a condition precedent to the application of the dictum stated in any of the line of the cases afore noticed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 286 - R S Bachawat - Full Document

Head Master,Lawrence School,Lovedale vs Jayanthi Raghu & Anr on 16 March, 2012

48. However, there will be cases where not only such specific Rules, as noticed above, are absent but the Rules specifically prohibit extension of the period of probation or even specifically provide that upon expiry of that period he shall attain the status of a temporary or a confirmed employee. In such cases, again, two situations would rise: one, that he would attain the status of an employee being eligible for confirmation and second, that actually he will attain the status of a confirmed employee. The Courts have repeatedly held that it may not be possible to prescribe a straightjacket formula of universal implementation for all cases involving such questions. It will always depend upon the facts of a case and the relevant rules applicable to that service. Learned counsel has also relied on the Apex Court ruling in the case of Headmaster Lawrence School Lovedabel Vs. Jayanthi Raghu and Anr., 2012 (4) SCC 793, in Para-27 the following has been laid down:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 54 - D Misra - Full Document

Khazia Mohammed Muzammil vs State Of Karnataka & Anr on 8 July, 2010

5.2 The next citation relied upon by the applicant is of Kazia Mohammed Muzzammil (supra). The respondents have also relied on the same. We find that the view taken by the Apex Court is that it may not be possible to prescribe a straightjacket formula of universal implementation for all cases as far as deemed confirmation is concerned. The Apex Court has stated that it will always depend upon the facts of a case and the relevant rules applicable to that service.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 51 - S Kumar - Full Document

Kedar Nath Bahl vs The State Of Punjab And Ors. on 5 October, 1978

In the case of Kedar Nath Bahl Vs. The State of Punjab and Others reported in 1974 (3) SCC 21, this Court clearly laid down the proposition of law that where a person is appointed as a probationer in any post and a period of probation is specified, it does not follow that at the end of the said specified period of probation he obtains confirmation automatically even if no order is passed on that behalf. It was also held in that decision that unless the terms of appointment clearly indicate that confirmation would automatically follow at the end of the specified period or that there is a specific service rule to that effect, the expiration of the probationary period does not necessarily lead to confirmation. This Court went on to hold that at the end of the period of probation an order confirming the officer is required to be passed and if no such order is passed and if he is not reverted to his substantive post, the result merely is that he continues in his post as a probationer. Learned ASG stated that the first proposal resulted into a decision by which another chance was given to the applicant to meet his performance and he remained a probationer even thereafter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 80 - Full Document

Dev Dutt vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 May, 2008

The applicant has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dev Dutt (supra). However, we feel that the facts of the present case are different from the case cited by the applicant. In the case of Dev Dutt, Honble Supreme Court were concerned with un-communicated below bench-mark ACRs of an officer being assessed by DPC for promotion. First of all that case was not of a probationer. Secondly, it was a case of DPC in which decision is taken purely on the basis of ACRs by the DPC and the officer concerned has no say in the matter. In such a situation, the Apex Court had come to the conclusion that below bench-mark ACRs should be communicated to the officer and he be given a chance to represent against them before a decision is taken by the DPC regarding his promotion. However, in the instant case we notice that the decision is not based purely on SPR/ACR etc. The PESB Guidelines provide that in case the SPR score of an Executive is below the prescribed level, the Ministry can move a proposal for his non-confirmation. The Guidelines also provide that if the SPR score is more than the prescribed level then the Ministry is duty bound to issue a confirmation order of the applicant if he is otherwise eligible. Thus, while the confirmation is automatic based on the SPR score, non-confirmation is not. In such a case, a proposal is made by the Ministry to PESB who then convene a Board Meeting in which besides the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry the concerned Executive is also invited. Thus, the process of arriving at the decision of non-confirmation is participatory in nature. The Executive himself participates in the discussions held where he will get full chance to rebut any material i.e. relied upon against him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 1116 - M Katju - Full Document

Rajesh Kumar Srivastava vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 10 March, 2011

6.3 In reply, the respondents have stated that once it was concluded that the applicant was not confirmed and he was still a probationer, then as per law there was no requirement which mandated following principles of natural justice in the case of discharge/termination of a probationer. Respondents have relied on the judgement of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2011) 4 SCC 447 in which it has been held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 65 - M Sharma - Full Document

All India State Bank Officers' ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 13 September, 1996

9.1 We are not inclined to accept this argument. The termination of the applicant has not been done by anyone person but by PESB Board in which the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry was also present. This decision has been approved by ACC. Moreover, had there been any victimization, the applicant could have been terminated in the first Joint Appraisal Meeting itself rather than being given any chance. Thus, this argument of the applicant appears to be an after thought. In any case, if he had seriously alleged mala fide, he should have made the CMD of SAIL and Secretary, Ministry of Steel parties by name which would have given them an opportunity to rebut his claim. The respondents in this regard have cited the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of All India State Bank Officers Federation Vs. Union of India, (1997) 9 SCC 151 in which it was observed as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 94 - B N Kirpal - Full Document

Sukhbans Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 April, 1962

4.2 Learned ASG stated that mere continuation of the applicant on the said post after expiry of the period of one year and thirty days from his appointment does not mean that he is deemed to have been confirmed. In the aforesaid case at the first instance in the Joint Appraisal Meeting it was decided to review the performance of the applicant afresh after obtaining one more SPR. This recommendation was subsequently approved by the ACC also. The implication of this is that period of probation of the applicant was deemed to have been extended. Learned ASG pointed out that in the present case there was no maximum period of probation that had been prescribed. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sukhbans Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1711, learned ASG stated that in this case Constitution Bench had opined that a probationer cannot, after the expiry of probationary period, automatically acquire the status of a permanent member of the service, unless of course, the Rules under which he is appointed expressly provide for such a result.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 117 - J R Mudholkar - Full Document
1   2 Next