Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.74 seconds)
Anilkumar Jivaghai Jethwa vs Ut Of Daman And Diu on 6 November, 2024 cites

Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006

14. Learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Walia vehemently argued that the applicant was appointed vide order dated 20.04.2004 (Annex-A-4) as a casual worker on the post of Drawing Teacher, however, prior to aforesaid appointment due procedure was followed, names were called from Employment Exchange, applicant was participated in the selection process and only thereafter on the vacant post of late Shri Kamlesh S. Bhoya he was appointed and, therefore, the appointment of the applicant cannot be said to be a backdoor entry and since from 20.10.2004 till filing of the O.A. on 10 OA.171/2015 25.02.2015 he has already completed more than 10 years of service and, therefore, in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi(3) & Others, reported in 2006(4) SCC 1, applicant is entitle for consideration of his case for regularization with all consequential benefits.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 4959 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

The Managing Director, Hindustan Photo ... vs H.B. Vinoba And Others on 14 July, 1998

30. At this stage, it is relevant to take note of the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of judgment in the case of Managing Director, Hindustan Photo Films and another 20 OA.171/2015 Vs. H.B. Vinobha and others (supra) that long continuation due to interim order could not be a ground for regularisation. In the present case the interim order was passed by this Tribunal on 20.03.2015 and from 20.10.2004 till the aforesaid date i.e. 20.03.2015 no interim order was operative, meaning thereby from initial engagement / appointment, the applicant was working continuously for more than 10 years and, therefore, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the present set of facts.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 9 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. .... .... Opp. ... on 14 January, 2019

(a) The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicant on the post of Drawing Teacher on the basis of completion of 10 years of service from October, 2004 strictly in conformity with observation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Umadevi and Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court within a period of 60 days by passing a detailed and speaking order from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 111 - A Sen - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Bahadur Singh & Ors on 17 December, 2008

21. Learned counsel also relied upon in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Bahadur Singh and others, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 737 and in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2018) 13 SCC 432 and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Constitutional Bench judgment in case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, deprecated appointment made through side / back-door being contrary to the Constitutional claim of equality and, therefore, on the basis of aforesaid judgments, the learned counsel submits that the applicant is not entitle for any relief and the O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 8 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Sheo Narain Nagar vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 13 November, 2017

21. Learned counsel also relied upon in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Bahadur Singh and others, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 737 and in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2018) 13 SCC 432 and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Constitutional Bench judgment in case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, deprecated appointment made through side / back-door being contrary to the Constitutional claim of equality and, therefore, on the basis of aforesaid judgments, the learned counsel submits that the applicant is not entitle for any relief and the O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 9 - Cited by 159 - Full Document
1   2 Next