Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.54 seconds)
Aniket Akhade vs Vidyavardhini Through Its Secretary ... on 16 April, 2024 cites

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Akbar Ali Khan on 9 March, 1966

The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the decision of Dharam Singh was not applicable, and the decision in the case of State of UP Vs Akbar Ali Khan12 was relied upon. In Akbar Ali Khan, a similar rule as that in the case of Mohd Salman was considered. In the said cases there was no Rule that on the expiry of the probation period, the probationer shall be deemed to have been confirmed. In Akbar Ali Khan, a departmental exam was required to be cleared to found fit for confirmation. Hence, it was held that if the order says that at the end of the probation period, the appointee shall stand confirmed, then in the absence of any order to the contrary, the appointee shall acquire the substantive right of permanency even 12 AIR 1996 SC 1842 47/51 901.1590.23 wp.docx without an order of confirmation; and, in all other cases, an express order of confirmation is necessary without any such order or service rule. So, if a probationer is allowed to continue in the absence of such an order or any service rule, the appointee, by implication, will continue on probation. In the said case even the appointment order mentioned that services will be regularized only if probation is found satisfactory. Therefore, it was held not entitled to deemed confirmation in the absence of any order of confirmation. Thus, even the reliance on the decision of Mohd Salman is misplaced in view of the different facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 103 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next