Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 63 (0.38 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
“13.In the aforesaid undisputed facts it is wholly
unnecessary for us to consider as to whether the cases
of persons who were awaiting regularisation on the date
of the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v.
Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is
required to be dealt with in accordance with the
conditions stipulated in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 753] inasmuch as the claims of the respondent
employees can well be decided on principles of parity.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
2Ec.To Govt.,School Education ... vs Thiru R.Govindaswamy & Ors on 21 February, 2014
90. Reiterating the principles laid down in the
Case of Secretary to Government, School Education
Department, Chennai Vs. R.Govindaswamy and
others, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 769, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India emphatically ruled that the High
Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India will not issue directions for
regularization, absorption or permanent continuance.
Unless the employees claiming regularization had been
appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in
accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive
process against sanctioned vacant posts, the equality
clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be
http://www.judis.nic.in
83
scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a
direction for regularization of services of an employee
which would be violative of the Constitutional scheme.
B.N. Nagarajan And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 3 May, 1979
42, para 53)
“53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be
cases where irregular appointments (not illegal
http://www.judis.nic.in
97
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 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
http://www.judis.nic.in
98
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 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)
http://www.judis.nic.in
86
753] and explaining the difference between irregular
and illegal appointments in 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 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] , SCC p. 250, para
State Of Punjab vs Jagdip Singh & Ors on 19 September, 1963
The earlier Constitution Bench in the
http://www.judis.nic.in
47
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.