Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.53 seconds)
Union Of India vs K.Ragothaman on 27 February, 2019 cites

State Of West Bengal And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Aghore Nath Dey And Ors. Etc. Etc on 2 April, 1993

In such http://www.judis.nic.in 25 cases, the deficiency in the procedural requirements laid down by the rules has to be cured at the first available opportunity, without any default of the employee, and the appointee must continue in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service, in accordance with the rules. In such cases, the appointee is not to blame for the deficiency in the procedural requirements under the rules at the time of his initial appointment, and the appointment not-
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 170 - J S Verma - Full Document

K. Madhavan And Anr. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc on 9 October, 1987

40.It is to be pointed out that 'Ad hoc Appointment' (being a precarious one) is made without reference to recruitment rules and by way of a stop gap arrangement for a very short period and the said appointment does not confer any service rights to the 'Holder of Post'. An 'Ad hoc Appointment' cannot be a Part of Cadre, though a temporary Appointment can be like that. Significantly, an 'Appointment' on 'Regular Basis' means Appointment not on 'Ad hoc' or stop gap or purely temporary basis as per decision K.Madhavan V. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2291.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 141 - M M Dutt - Full Document

R.K. Trivedi And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 9 December, 1997

41.It is to be borne in mind that an 'Ad hoc Employee' is not regarded as a member of the cadre and as such, he has no claim of service rights including right to seniority to the post. At this stage, this Court aptly points out the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K.Trivedi V. Union of India, (1998) 9 SCC 58 wherein it is held that where there are Statutory Recruitment Rules prescribing a particular mode of selection regularisation of employment could be effected/made only after going through the rigorous of the prescribed selection process and no shortcut to avoid it is permissible.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

S. P. Vasudeva vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 8 October, 1975

42.At the outset, it is to be remembered that the word 'Ad hoc' is a Latin term and whenever an appointment is stated to be an Ad hoc Appointment, it is purely a 'Transitory Appointment' or a fortuitous or a stop gap one. In short, the said Appointment is not a regular appointment and does not confer an indefeasible right on the holder of the post as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pooswamy M. V. Union of India, 1978 (2) SLR 334. Moreover, an 'Ad hoc Appointment' is an appointment for special and particular purpose to last for a particular period, as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P.Vasudeva V. State of Haryana, AIR 1975 SC 2292.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 36 - A Alagiriswami - Full Document

J & K Public Service Commission vs Dr Narinder Mohan on 7 December, 1993

44.At this stage, this Court aptly points out the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J & K Public Service Commission V. Dr.Narinder Mohan, AIR 1994 SC 1808 at special page 1813, wherein it is mentioned that 'A little leeway to make Ad hoc Appointments due to emergent exigencies does not clothe the executive Government with the power to relax the Recruitment Rules nor to regularise such appointment nor to claim such appointments to be regular or in accordance with rules'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 255 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Director, Institute Of Management ... vs Smt. Pushpa Srivastava on 4 August, 1992

“8.In the case of Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. Vs . Smt. Pushpa Srivastava MANU/SC/ 0409/1992 : (1993) ILLJ 190 SC, while considering the question of regularisation of the appointment purely http://www.judis.nic.in 49 ad hoc and contractual for a limited period, it has been held that “in case of appointment purely ad hoc and contractual for a limited period, the right to remain in the post comes to an end after the expiry of the period. Director of the High Court reinstating the respondent and regularising her services set aside.” The principle laid down in the case of Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. Vs. Smt Pushpa Srivastava (supra) will be applicable with all force to the present case for the reason that the question before the Supreme Court was of regularisation of the service where the appointment was purely ad hoc and contractual for a limited period. As pointed out above, in the instant case also, the appointment of the petitioners is purely ad hoc and contractual for a period of six months and the contract has admittedly ended by efflux of time. When the right to continue on any post is purely contractual for a fixed period, such a right would come to an end on expiry of such period.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 316 - S Mohan - Full Document
1   2 Next