Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 155 (1.54 seconds)
Page No.# 1/134 vs The State Of Assam And Anr. A on 20 June, 2025 cites

Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Senior Sec. ... vs J.A.J. Vasu Sena on 21 August, 2019

77) In the case of Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Secondary School (supra), Rule 105(2) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 contemplated maximum probation period of two years. Rule 105(1) merely exempted a minority institution from seeking prior approval of the Director for Page No.# 86/134 extension of the period of probation "by another year". Under those facts, the High Court had held that the maximum period of probation is two years, which was approved by the Supreme Court of India. However, it was also held that mere continuation of services of a probationer beyond the period of probation does not lead to deemed confirmation in service. In this case, the distinguishing factor is that the appellants were not only allowed to hold substantive posts but they were also granted second pay-increment, which they would not have been entitled to without being confirmed in service.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 17 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Satya Narayan Athya vs High Court Of M.P. & Anr on 24 November, 1995

75) In the case of Pratap Singh (supra), the Supreme Court of India had referred to the decision in the case of Dharam Singh (supra), and held that as the appellant was appointed only against a temporary post, they cannot be treated as confirmed employee and in the case of Dharam Singh (supra) and Satya Narayan Athya (supra), it was held that deemed extension would mean that the person would be deemed to continue as a probationer. In this case, the Page No.# 85/134 distinguishing fact is that the appellants have successfully demonstrated that they were allowed to hold substantive post.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 71 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next