Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 94 (1.33 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Piara Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 12 August, 1992
In State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh and Others [1992) 3 SCR 826., the court was considering the sustainability of certain directions issued by the High Court in the light of various orders passed by the State for the absorption of its ad hoc or temporary employees and daily wagers or casual labour. And concluded in paragraphs 45 to 50:
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Suresh Kumar Verma & Aar on 24 January, 1996
(3) SCC 380], Union of India vs. Kishan Gopal Vyas [1996 (7) SCC 134], Union of India vs. Moti Lal [1996 (7) SCC 481], Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. vs. Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao [1996 (7) SCC 499], State of H.P. vs. Suresh Kumar Verma [1996 (7) SCC 562], Dr. Surinder Singh Jamwal vs. State of J&K [1996 (9) SCC 619], E. Ramakrishnan vs. State of Kerala [1996 (10) SCC 565], Union of India and Others vs. Bishambar Dutt [1996 (11) SCC 341], Union of India vs. Mahender Singh [1997 (1) SCC 247], P. Ravindran and Others vs. Union Territory of Pondicherry and Others [1997 (1) SCC 350], Ashwani Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others [1997 (2) SCC 1], Santosh Kumar Verma and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others [1997 (2) SCC 713], State of U.P. and Others vs. Ajay [1997 (4) SCC 88], Patna University vs. Dr. Amita Tiwari [1997 (7) SCC 198] and Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad vs. Anil Kumar Mishra [2005 (5) SCC 122].
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Court In The Case Of Secretary, State Of ... vs . Uma on 9 April, 2015
56. By virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution, the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (supra) is binding on all the courts including this Court till the same is overruled by a larger Bench.
Director, Institute Of Management ... vs Smt. Pushpa Srivastava on 4 August, 1992
51. The menace of illegal and backdoor appointments compelled the Courts to have rethinking and in large number of subsequent judgments the Court declined to entertain the claims of ad-hoc and temporary employees for regularization of services and even reversed the orders passed by the High Courts and Administrative Tribunals - Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. vs. Pushpa Srivastava [1992 (4) SCC 33], Dr. M.A. Haque and Others vs. Union of India and Others [1993 (2) SCC 213], J & K Public Service Commission vs. Dr. Narinder Mohan [1994 (2) SCC 630], Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar vs. State of Maharashtra [1994 Suppl.
A. Umarani vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies And ... on 28 July, 2004
52. The shift in the Court's approach became more prominent in A. Umarani vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies [2004 (7) SCC 112], decided by a three-Judges Bench, wherein it was held that the State cannot invoke Article 162 of the Constitution for regularization of the appointments made in violation of the mandatory statutory provisions.
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
29. A similar view has been reiterated by the Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1806, observing that any appointment made in violation of the Statutory Rules as also in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution would be a nullity. "Adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is a must in the process of public employment". The Court further rejected the prayer that ad hoc appointees working for long be considered for regularisation as such a course only encourages the State to flout its own rules and would confer undue benefits on some at the cost of many waiting to compete.