Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mangal Prasad Tamoli (Dead) By Lrs vs Narvedshwar Mishra (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors on 24 February, 2005
37. It is a settled legal proposition that if an order is bad in its
inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent
action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful
at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root
of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to
validate such an order. It would be ironic to permit a person to rely
upon a law, in violation of which he has obtained the benefits. If an
order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings
consequent thereto will be non est and have to be necessarily set
aside. A right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful
origin. (Vide Upen Chandra Gogoi v. State of Assam16, Mangal
Prasad Tamoli v. Narvadeshwar Mishra 17 and Ritesh Tewari v.
State of U.P.18)
State Of Orissa & Anr vs Mamata Mohanty on 9 February, 2011
7. The pleadings of the rival parties and the arguments advanced by
their respective counsels have been carefully examined by me. At the
outset, I cannot but observe that there is absolutely no evidence to show
that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher at any given time
by undergoing due process of recruitment conducted by the State-
respondents. From his initial appointment order itself, it can be seen that
he was merely appointed against the lien vacancy of the incumbent (one
Abu Tuleb, Senior Hindi Teacher of Lakhipur Higher Secondary School)
and his period of appointment was co-terminus with the return of the
WP(C) No. 3655/2010 Page 6 of 8
incumbent to his original post, namely, the temporarily post held by the
petitioner. Again, the order dated 17-6-2003 issued by the Inspector of
Schools, GDC, Goalpara indicates that it was on his own request, the post
held by him was converted into General post (whatever that may mean)
and was transferred (??) in the same school in his own grade vice one
Chakreshwar Kakati, who had retired from service. In my opinion, the
kind of appointment claimed by the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid
orders, to say the least, confused and confounded me and is possibly
unknown in the service jurisprudence. All that I can say is that the initial
appointment and the subsequent appointment of the petitioner to the post
of Assistant Teacher were never made in accordance with the recognized
recruitment process and were made de hors the rules and are,
accordingly, void ab initio. The question as to whether such illegal
appointment can confer the right to claim salary for the service rendered
and seek regularization of such service have come up for consideration
before the Apex Court in Mamata Mohanty case (supra) and was decided
in the following manner:
M.S. Patil vs Gulbarga University And Ors on 27 August, 2010
38. The concept of adverse possession of lien on post or holding
over are (sic) not applicable in service jurisprudence. Therefore,
continuation of a person wrongly appointed on post does not create
any right in his favour. [Vide M.S. Patil (Dr.) v. Gulbarga
University 19.]
Ritesh Tewari & Anr vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 21 September, 2010
37. It is a settled legal proposition that if an order is bad in its
inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent
action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful
at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root
of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to
validate such an order. It would be ironic to permit a person to rely
upon a law, in violation of which he has obtained the benefits. If an
order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings
consequent thereto will be non est and have to be necessarily set
aside. A right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful
origin. (Vide Upen Chandra Gogoi v. State of Assam16, Mangal
Prasad Tamoli v. Narvadeshwar Mishra 17 and Ritesh Tewari v.
State of U.P.18)
Upen Chandra Gogoi vs State Of Assam & Ors on 20 March, 1998
37. It is a settled legal proposition that if an order is bad in its
inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent
action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful
at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root
of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to
validate such an order. It would be ironic to permit a person to rely
upon a law, in violation of which he has obtained the benefits. If an
order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings
consequent thereto will be non est and have to be necessarily set
aside. A right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful
origin. (Vide Upen Chandra Gogoi v. State of Assam16, Mangal
Prasad Tamoli v. Narvadeshwar Mishra 17 and Ritesh Tewari v.
State of U.P.18)
1