Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 56 (0.38 seconds)Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
Question, however, is whether the
appointments in the instant case could be described as illegal and if
they were not, whether the State could be directed to regularise the
services of the degree-holder Junior Engineers who have worked as
ad hoc Assistant Engineers for such a long period, not only on the
http://www.judis.nic.in
59
analogy of the legislative enactment for regularisation but also on the
principle underlying para 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3) case
[State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 753] .
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
B.N. Nagarajan And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 3 May, 1979
“17. Dr. Pillay, however, strongly relied upon the observations
made in Para 53 in Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753]
which reads as under: (SCC p. 42, para 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
http://www.judis.nic.in
75
by this Court in the cases abovereferred 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
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. The appellants' case,
thus, does not come within the purview thereof. Only those cases
where regularisations had already been made were not to be
reopened. It is not in dispute that services of the appellants were
terminated as far back as in 1987 and they did not question the
legality or validity of the said order.
State Of Punjab vs Jagdip Singh & Ors on 19 September, 1963
The earlier 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.
Article 335 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
R. N. Nanjundappa vs T. Thimmiah & Anr on 8 December, 1971
22. With respect, it appears to us that the question whether the
jettisoning of the constitutional scheme of appointment can be
approved, was not considered or decided. The distinction emphasised
http://www.judis.nic.in
73
in R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah [(1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2
SCR 799] was also not kept in mind. The Court appears to have been
dealing with a scheme for “equal pay for equal work” and in the
process, without an actual discussion of the question, had approved a
scheme put forward by the State, prepared obviously at the direction
of the Court, to order permanent absorption of such daily-rated
workers. With respect to the learned judges, the decision cannot be
said to lay down any law, that all those engaged on daily wages,
casually, temporarily, or when no sanctioned post or vacancy existed
and without following the rules of selection, should be absorbed or
made permanent though not at a stretch, but gradually. If that were
the ratio, with respect, we have to disagree with it.”