Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (1.32 seconds)
Dr. Mohd. Arshad Malik vs Jamia Millia Islamia University & Ors on 23 September, 2019 cites

Dr. L.P. Agarwal vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 July, 1992

22. The petitioner, in Dr. L. P. Agarwal (supra), was appointed as Director, AIIMS, w.e.f. 18th February, 1979. The order of appointment, dated 6th April, 1979, stated that he had been appointed as Director for a period of five years, or till he attained the age of 62 years, whichever was earlier. This appointment, the judgment notes, was made on the basis of the recommendation of a Special Selection Committee, which was accepted by the Institute-Body and approved by the Government of India. Dr. Agarwal was confirmed, in the said post, on 19th February, 1980. By an order dated 24th November, 1980, he was retired from service, in public interest, by giving him three months' pay and allowances, in lieu of notice. Dr. Agarwal challenged the decision, and the dispute made its way to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 71 - K Singh - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs Shardindu on 16 May, 2007

28. Another decision, which specifically addressed the issue of premature termination of a tenure appointment, was Union of India v. Shardindu, (2007) 6 SCC 276. The respondent Shardindu, in that case, was appointed as Chairperson of the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE), w.e.f. 22nd January, 2004, for a fixed period of four years or till he attained the age of 60, whichever was earlier. Before expiry of the stipulated four-year period, however, vide order dated 18th November, 2005, the appointment of Shardindu as Chairperson of the NCTE was prematurely terminated, and he was repatriated to his parent cadre. This, avowedly, was pursuant to an enquiry, conducted against him for an incident which took place in 2001, before he was brought, on deputation, to the tenure post of Chairperson of the NCTE. The Supreme Court was, therefore, concerned with the issue of whether it was permissible to prematurely terminate the deputation of Shardindu, which was otherwise for a fixed tenure, prior to the expiry of the tenure. The Single Judge, and the Division Bench of this Court, had held in favour of Shardindu. The doctrine of pleasure, under Article 310 of the Constitution of India, was pressed into service, by the appellant-Union of India, before the Supreme Court, but this submission was rejected. In para 16 of its report, the Supreme Court opined thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 59 - A K Mathur - Full Document
1   2 3 Next