Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.37 seconds)G. S. Ramaswamy & Ors vs Inspector-General Of Police, Mysore on 21 January, 1964
But it cannot be said that
merely because a maximum period of probation has been
provided in Service Rules, continuance of the probationer
thereafter would ipso facto must be held to be a deemed
confirmation which would certainly run contrary to Seven Judge
Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Shamsher Singh
(supra) and Constitution Bench decisions in the cases of
Sukhbans Singh (supra), G.S. Ramaswamy (supra) and Akbar Ali
Khan (supra)."
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Akbar Ali Khan on 9 March, 1966
But it cannot be said that
merely because a maximum period of probation has been
provided in Service Rules, continuance of the probationer
thereafter would ipso facto must be held to be a deemed
confirmation which would certainly run contrary to Seven Judge
Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Shamsher Singh
(supra) and Constitution Bench decisions in the cases of
Sukhbans Singh (supra), G.S. Ramaswamy (supra) and Akbar Ali
Khan (supra)."
State Of Punjab vs Dharam Singh on 2 February, 1968
"..................the explanation to rule 7(1) shows that the period of
probation shall be deemed to have been extended impliedly if a
Subordinate Judge is not confirmed on the expiry of this period
of probation. This implied extension where a Subordinate Judge
is not confirmed on the expiry of the period of probation is not
found in Dharam Singh's case (supra). This explanation in the
present case does not mean that the implied extension of the
probationary period is only between two and three years.
Om Prakash Maurya vs U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories ... on 9 May, 1986
Similarly, in Om Prakash Maurya (supra), there
was a restriction under the Regulations to extend the period of
probation. That apart, in the rules under consideration, the said
cases did not stipulate that something else was required to be
done by the employer and, therefore, it was held that the concept
of deemed confirmation got attracted.
Municipal Corporation, Raipur vs Ashok Kumar Misra on 16 April, 1991
In Municipal Corporation, Raipur v. Ashok Kumar
Misra8, while dealing with Rule 14 of the Madhya Pradesh
Government Servants' General Conditions of Service Rules, 1961,
after referring to earlier pronouncements, it has been held that if
7
AIR 1986 SC 1844
8
AIR 1991 SC 1402
16
the rules do not empower the appointing authority to extend the
probation beyond the prescribed period, or where the rules are
absent about confirmation or passing of the prescribed test for -
Dayaram Dayal vs State Of M.P. And Anr on 28 August, 1997
In Dayaram Dayal (supra), it had
been held that if no order for confirmation was passed within the
maximum period of probation, the probationer judicial officer
9
(2001) 7 SCC 161 : AIR 2001 SC 3234
10
AIR 1997 SC 3269
17
could be deemed to have been confirmed after expiry of four years
period of probation.
Sukhbans Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 April, 1962
But it cannot be said that
merely because a maximum period of probation has been
provided in Service Rules, continuance of the probationer
thereafter would ipso facto must be held to be a deemed
confirmation which would certainly run contrary to Seven Judge
Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Shamsher Singh
(supra) and Constitution Bench decisions in the cases of
Sukhbans Singh (supra), G.S. Ramaswamy (supra) and Akbar Ali
Khan (supra)."
S.N. Sharma vs Bipen Kumar Tiwari And Ors on 10 March, 1970
In this regard, we may usefully refer to the decision
in S.N. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari and others12. In the
said case, a three-Judge Bench was interpreting the words "if he
thinks fit" as provided under Section 159 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1898. It related to the exercise of power by the
Magistrate. In that context, the Bench observed thus: -
State Of Tamil Nadu vs Kodaianal Motor Union (P) Ltd on 1 May, 1986
In State of Tamil Nadu v. Kodaikanal Motor Union (P)
Ltd.13, the Court, while interpreting the words "if the offence had
not been committed" as used in Section 10-A(1) of the Central
Sales Tax Act, 1956, expressed the view as follows: -