Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.32 seconds)
Ravinder Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 22 April, 2026 cites

Supreme Court Reports [1962] Supp.Dr. ... vs The Governing Body Of The Nalanda ... on 15 December, 1961

43. Normally, what is sought for by such temporary employees when they approach the court, is the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the employer, the State or its instrumentalities, to absorb them in permanent NEHA 2026.04.23 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-5684-2026; CWP-5766-2026 CWP-8371-2026 & CWP-10623-2026 -10- service or to allow them to continue. In this context, the question arises whether a mandamus could be issued in favour of such persons. At this juncture, it will be proper to refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College [(1962) Supp. 2 SCR 144]. That case arose out of a refusal to promote the writ petitioner therein as the Principal of a college. This Court held that in order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved party had a legal right under the statute or rule to enforce it. This classical position continues and a mandamus could not be issued in favour of the employees directing the Government to make them permanent since the employees cannot show that they have an enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed or that the State has a legal duty to make them permanent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 446 - J L Kapur - Full Document

State Of Orissa & Anr vs Mamata Mohanty on 9 February, 2011

9. Thus, the cumulative effect of Uma Devi(supra), Mamata Mohanty (supra) and K.Jayaram (supra) is that the State or its instrumentalities cannot offer public employment without engaging in a transparent process that favours meritocracy, lest it may be construed as backdoor entry. On that note, adverting to the facts of the present case, the NEHA 2026.04.23 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-5684-2026; CWP-5766-2026 CWP-8371-2026 & CWP-10623-2026 -18- petitioners were appointed in furtherance of duly issued advertisements (Annexure A-1 colly). The letters (Annexure A-1 colly) exchanged between M/s S.S. Service Providers reflects that permission was granted by Khalsa Senior Secondary School, Patiala to allow use of the school premises to conduct a written test for recruiting clerical staff for respondent-PEPSU on 01.12.2013. Further, a type test was conducted for the posts of Data Entry Operator-cum-Clerk, Assistant Cashier and Clerk at Thapar University, Patiala on 19.06.2017. Pursuant to the same, a merit list was prepared and the eligible candidates were invited for counselling. As a matter of fact, the medical fee of Rs.100/- paid by petitioner-Rohi Ram was deposited in the account of respondent-PEPSU, as also discernible from the receipt issued in the name of the Managing Director thereof. Further still, the petitioners were engaged against sanctioned posts and possessed the requisite qualifications to be considered for regular appointment to the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 995 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next