Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.30 seconds)
Chhayaben Labhshanker Mehta vs State Of Gujarat on 1 December, 2004 cites

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh Thru. ... vs Satya Narayan Jhavar on 14 August, 2001

(b) The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of HIGH COURT OF M.P. v. SATYA NARAYAN JHAVAR reported in (2001) 7 SCC 161, was cited to point out that the Supreme Court has laid down three classifications of cases in the matter of probationers. It was observed therein that one line of cases is where in the service rules or the letter of appointment a period of probation is specified and the power to extend the same is also conferred upon the authority without prescribing any maximum period of probation and if the officer is continued beyond the prescribed or extended period, he cannot be deemed to be confirmed. In such cases there is no bar against termination at any point of time after expiry of the period of probation. The other line of cases is that where while there is a provision in the rules for initial probation and extension thereof, a maximum period for such extension is also provided beyond which it is not permissible to extend probation. The inference in such cases is that the officer concerned is deemed to have been confirmed upon expiry of the maximum period of probation in case before its expiry the order of termination has not been passed. The last line of cases is where, though under the rules maximum period of probation is prescribed, but the same requires a specific act on the part of the employer by issuing an order of confirmation and of passing a test for the purposes of confirmation. In such cases even if the maximum period of probation has expired and neither any order of confirmation has been passed nor has the person concerned passed the requisite test, he cannot be deemed to have been confirmed merely because the said period has expired.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 81 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

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

(f) The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of KEDAR NATH BAHL v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB and Ors. reported in AIR 1972 SC 873 was cited for the proposition 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 in that behalf. It was held that unless the terms of appointment clearly indicate that confirmation would automatically follow at the end of the specified period or if there is a specific rule to that effect, the expiration of the probationary period does not necessarily lead to confirmation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 80 - Full Document

State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr vs Dharam Bir on 8 June, 1998

(c) The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State Of M.P and Anr. v. Dharam Bir reported in (1998) 6 SCC 165, was cited for the proposition that whether a person holds a particular post in a substatntive capacity or is only temporary or ad hoc is a question which directly relates to his status and that it all depends upon the terms of appointment. It was held that it is not open to any Government employee to claim automatic alteration of status unless that result is specifically envisaged by some provision in the statutory rules. Unless, therefore, there is a provision in the statutory rules for alteration of status in a particular situation, it is not open to any Government employee to claim a status different from that which was conferred upon him at the initial or any subsequent stage of service.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 265 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Akbar Ali Khan on 9 March, 1966

(e) The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. AKBAR ALI KHAN reported in AIR 1966 SC 1842, was cited for the proposition that confirmation in the post which a probationer is holding does not result merely from the expiry of the period of probation, and so long as the order of confirmation is not made, the holder of the post remains a probationer. It was observed that it has been held by the Court that when a first appointment or promotion is made on probation for a specified period and the employee is allowed to continue in the post, after the expiry of the said period without any specific order of confirmation he continues as a probationer only and acquires no substantive right to hold the post. If the order of appointment itself states that at the end of the period of probation the appointee will stand confirmed, in the absence of any order to the contrary, the appointee will acquire a substantive right to the post even without order of confirmation. It was held that in all other cases, in the absence of such an order or in the absence of such a service rule, an express order of confirmation is necessary to give him such a right. It was held that where after the period of probation an appointee is allowed to continue in the post without an order of confirmation, the only possible view to take is that by implication the period of probation has been extended, and it is not a correct proposition to state that an appointee should be deemed to be confirmed from the mere fact that he is allowed to continue after the end of the period of probation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 103 - Full Document

T. C. M. Pillai vs Indian Institute Of Technology, ... on 29 April, 1971

(i) The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. T.C.M. Pillai v. The Indian Institute Of Technology, Guindy, Madras, reported in AIR 1971 SC 1811, was cited for the proposition that it is well settled that a probationary or a temporary servant can be discharged if it is found that he is not suitable for the post which he is holding, and that this can be done without complying with the provisions of Article 311(2) unless the services are terminated by way of punishment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 22 - A N Grover - Full Document

High Court Of M.P vs Mahesh Prakash And Others on 6 September, 1994

(l) The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of HIGH COURT OF M.P. v. MAHESH PRAKASH and Ors., reported in AIR 1994 SC 2595, was cited for the proposition that every Civil Judge up for confirmation in Class-II, being a class to which he had been recruited, was liable to be judged individually on his own record and that comparative assessment of records is not warranted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 28 - S P Bharucha - Full Document
1   2 Next