Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rattan Lal & Ors. Etc.Etc vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 16 August, 1985
In
Rattan Lal's case (supra), the Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of
appointing teachers on ad hoc basis at the commencement of an academic
year and terminating them before the summer vacation, only to reappoint
them thereafter. The Supreme Court has held that such a practice would
amount to exploitation and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution,
observing that the Government, as a model employer, cannot resort to
arbitrary "hiring and firing" policies.
State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Piara Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 12 August, 1992
12. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the ratio
in Piara Singh's case (supra) has been overruled by the Constitution Bench
judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1.
The said submission in our opinion, does not merit acceptance.
Md. Abdul Kadir & Anr vs Director General Of Police, Assam & Ors on 22 April, 2009
11. Similarly, in Mohd. Abdul Kadir's (supra), where the scheme
under which the employees were engaged continued, the Supreme Court
held that such employees need not be subjected to annual termination and
reappointment merely because their appointment was termed as ad hoc, and
directed that they should continue as long as the scheme itself continued.
Manish Gupta vs President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti on 21 April, 2022
The said view has recently been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Manish
Gupta's case (supra), wherein it has been categorically held that an ad hoc
employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and can be
replaced only by a regularly appointed candidate.
State Of U.P. And Ors. vs Raj Karan Singh on 18 March, 1996
In this
regard, reliance has been placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in
State of U.P. v. Raj Karan Singh (1998) 8 SCC 529 and State of
Rajasthan v. Daya Lal (2011) 2 SCC 429, to contend that contractual
engagements come to an end upon expiry of the term and do not confer any
right to continuation beyond the term of their engagement.
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Daya Lal & Ors on 13 January, 2011
In this
regard, reliance has been placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in
State of U.P. v. Raj Karan Singh (1998) 8 SCC 529 and State of
Rajasthan v. Daya Lal (2011) 2 SCC 429, to contend that contractual
engagements come to an end upon expiry of the term and do not confer any
right to continuation beyond the term of their engagement.
1