Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.33 seconds)
D.D. Upadhyaya And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 27 July, 1998 cites

State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr vs Dr. Rahimuddin Kamal on 7 February, 1997

In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. v. Dr. Rahimuddin Kamal , Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have considered the matter as to whether the non-consultation of U.P.S.C, or State Public Service Commission in the case of service matters of the officers will render the action taken to be illegal. The phraseology used in Article 302(3)(c) of the Constitution has been referred and the words, "shall be consulted", used therein have been considered with reference to the Rules which were under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the same have been held to be not mandatory.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 23 - S P Kurdukar - Full Document

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs Virendra Kumar Jayantibhai Patel(With ... on 23 July, 1997

In the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Virendrakumar Jayantibhai Patel (supra), speaking for the Apex Court, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.N. Khare observed, "there is no room for sympathy or equity in the matter of such appointment specially where the recruitment in service is governed by the statutory rules". In the case before the Apex Court, the respondent therein was appointed on ad hoc and temporary basis in services of the Corporation and on which post recruitment was to be made by selection. The respondent has not been selected in selection and then he approached the Tribunal for regularisation of his service. The Tribunal has ordered for his absorption and on the appeal filed by the Corporation, the matter has come up before the Apex Court. It appears from the judgment that long continuation of respondent in service was one of the factors which prevailed with the Tribunal to pass the order for his absorption. In the background of these facts, speaking for the Court, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.N. Khare, further observed, "If the reasoning given by the Tribunal is accepted, the statutory recruitment rules would become nugatory or otiose and the department can favour any person or appoint any person without following procedure provided in the recruitment rules which would lead to nepotism and arbitrariness". The Court has further gone to observe, "once the consideration of equity in the fact of statutory rules is accepted then eligible and qualified persons would be sufferers as they would not get any chance to be considered for appointment. The result would be that persons lesser in merit would get preference in the matter of appointment merely on the ground of equity and compassion". The Court has held that, "it is not safe to bend the arms of law only for adjusting equity". Lastly, the Court concluded that the reasoning given by the Tribunal that sympathy demands the absorption of the respondent in service of the Corporation suffers from error of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 47 - V N Khare - Full Document

Dr. Surinder Singh Jamwal & Anr vs The State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors on 17 July, 1996

2. It is sought to be contended by Mr. M.M. Paikeday, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that in the light of the law laid down by This Court in Piara Singh case and in view of the fact that the petitioners have been continuing for more than 14 years, they are required to be regularised. We find no force in the contention. Admittedly, the posts are to be filled up through selection by P.S.C. recruitment norms. Necessarily, therefore, the requisition was sent for selection through the P.S.C, and candidates came to be selected. Under those circumstances, the candidates, who were found eligible and selected and recommended for appointment by the P.S.C. were required to be appointed. The Court rightly had exercised the power in declining to regularise the services of the petitioners.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 62 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 3 Next