Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 60 (0.63 seconds)Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
In view of the fact that the
learned counsel for the petitioner has cited number of
judgments, which were passed subsequent to the
Constitution Bench judgment, stating that Paragraph (53) of
the Umadevi Case has been interpreted in different ways
and under different circumstances and the present case is
also to be considered and a direction to be issued for
5/84
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.9069 of 2014
regularization. In view of the fact that large number of
judgments are cited before this Court in the matter of
regularization and permanent absorption, now, this Court
has to first decide what all are the judgments which all are
having a binding precedent and on this reason, this Court
has to consider very interpretation of the concept regarding
binding precedent.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Punjab vs Jagdip Singh & Ors on 19 September, 1963
The earlier
26/84
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.9069 of 2014
Constitution Bench in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagdip
Singh, held that where a Government Servant has no right
to a post or to a particular status, though an authority under
the Government acting beyond its competence had
purported to give that person a status which it was not
entitled to give he will not in law be deemed to have been
validly appointed to the post or given the particular status.
B.N. Nagarajan And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 3 May, 1979
53) 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There
may be cases where irregular appointments (not
illegal appointments) as explained in State of
Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa [AIR 1967 SC 1071
: (1967) 1 SCR 128] , R.N. Nanjundappa v. T.
Thimmiah [(1972) 1 SCC 409] and B.N.
Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka [(1979) 4 SCC
507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4] and referred to in para
15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly
sanctioned vacant posts might have been made
and the employees have continued to work for
ten years or more but without the intervention
of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The
question of regularisation of the services of such
employees may have to be considered on merits
in the light of the principles settled by this Court
in the cases above referred to and in the light of
this judgment. In that context, the Union of
India, the State Governments and their
instrumentalities should take steps to regularise
as a one-time measure, the services of such
irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten
years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not
under cover of orders of the courts or of
tribunals and should further ensure that regular
recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant
78/84
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.9069 of 2014
sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in
cases where temporary employees or daily
wagers are being now employed. The process
must be set in motion within six months from
this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if
any already made, but not sub judice, need not
be reopened based on this judgment, but there
should be no further bypassing of the
constitutional requirement and regularising or
making permanent, those not duly appointed as
per the constitutional scheme.(emphasis in
original) A case of regularisation which thus
attained finality and was not sub judice would
not come within the purview of exception to the
rule contained in Para 53 of the said judgment.
State Of Karnataka & Ors vs M.L. Kesari & Ors on 3 August, 2010
11.Elaborating upon the principles laid
down in Umadevi (3) case [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753] and explaining the difference
between irregular and illegal appointments in
66/84
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.9069 of 2014
State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari [(2010) 9 SCC
247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] , this Court held as
under: (M.L. Kesari case [(2010) 9 SCC 247 :