Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.29 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Daya Lal & Ors on 13 January, 2011
"12. It has been held in a recent decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Daya Lal, 2011 (2) SCC 429 following the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 cannot regularize an employee."
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
"Law pertaining to regularisation has now been authoritatively determined by a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1. On the application of law laid down in that case, it is clear that the question of regularisation of daily wager appointed contrary to law does not arise. This ration of the judgment could not be disputed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant as well."
State Of Karnataka & Ors vs G.V. Chandrashekhar on 25 February, 2009
In G.V. Chandrashekhar (supra), Court also said:
Man Singh vs Commnr., Garhwal Mandal, Pauri & Ors on 3 March, 2009
28. The same view has been reiterated in Man Singh Vs. Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri & others JT 2009 (3) SC 289.
State Of Bihar vs Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors on 20 March, 2009
In State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh & others (2009) 5 SCC 65, Court held that any regular appointment made on a post under the State or Union without issuing advertisement, inviting applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper selection where all eligible persons get a fair chance to complete is in violation of guarantee enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution. Ad hoc/ temporary/ daily wage employees are not entitled to claim regularisation in service as a matter of right. If an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher of superior Court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing wrong order.
Pinaki Chatterjee & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 March, 2009
In Pinaki Chatterjee & others Vs. Union of India & others 2009 (5) SCC 193, Court observed that it is no doubt true that the respondents under certain circumstances had been appointed directly as casual mates and they continued as such and further by virtue of their continuance they acquired temporary status but that by itself does not entitle them to be regularised as mates since that would be contrary to the rules in force. The Court further held that the respondents did not acquire a right for regularisation as mates from the mere fact of their continuance as casual mates for a considerable period.