Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.23 seconds)Rita Mishra And Ors. Etc. Etc. vs Director, Primary Education, Bihar And ... on 23 July, 1987
"17. The point was again examined by a Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Rita Mishra v. Director, Primary Education, Bihar [AIR 1988 Pat 26 : 1988 Lab IC 907 : 1987 BBCJ 701 (FB)] . The question posed before the Full Bench was whether a public servant was entitled to payment of salary to him for the work done despite the fact that his letter of appointment was forged, fraudulent or illegal. The Full Bench held: (AIR p. 32, para 13)
"13. It is manifest from the above that the rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service. Therefore, these rights, including the right to salary, spring from a valid and legal appointment to the post. Once it is found that the very appointment is illegal and is non est in the eye of the law, no statutory entitlement for salary or consequential rights of pension and other monetary benefits can arise. In particular, if the very appointment is rested on forgery, no statutory right can flow from it."
Section 19 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The State Of Bihar vs Devendra Sharma on 17 October, 2019
Paragraph-44 of State of Bihar Vs. Devendra Sharma's case (supra) is extracted herein below:-
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
"44. In view of the aforesaid judgments, it cannot be said that the appointment of the employees in the present set of appeals were irregular appointments. Such appointments are illegal appointment in terms of the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . As such appointments were made without any sanctioned post, without any advertisement giving opportunity to all eligible candidates to apply and seek public employment and without any method of recruitment. Such appointments were back door entries, an act of nepotism and favouritism and thus from any judicial standards cannot be said to be irregular appointments but are illegal appointments in wholly arbitrary process."
Ashwani Kumar & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 December, 1996
Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar (supra), which are relevant, are extracted herein below:-
Director Of Education vs Gajedhar Prasad Verma on 21 November, 1994
Therefore, the impugned judgment and orders are not sustainable in law. It is relevant to mention here that the Committees of Management have never approached this Court for creation of the posts on which the respondents were appointed. The respondent-petitioners had no right to be appointed against nonexistent posts. The Supreme Court in Director of Education and Ors. vs. Gajadhar Prasad Verma (supra) has held that even if the strength of the students is increased, in the absence of a post created by the Director, who is the competent Authority, no appointment can be made by the Committee of Management and, therefore, the order for payment of salary cannot be passed. Since the appointments of the respondent-petitioners were void ab initio, no right gets accrued on them for continuance in service.