Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)
South Malabar Gramin Bank vs K.Ramachandran cites

Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006

20. It was for the Bank to take a decision to condone non- working days during one or two years out of the total period of consideration of 10 years. No such decision of the Bank has been referred to or brought on record, which indicates in event, a daily W.A. Nos.1539, 1540, 1541, 1542, 1616, 1668, 1702, 1705, 1735, 1818, 2100 & 2394 of 2015 -: 32 :- wage employee has not worked for one year or two years during the period of consideration, his name should have been excluded from the select list. It was the Bank's decision to fix a criterion for absorption of daily wage employee in view of the observation and directions of the Supreme Court in Umadevi's case (cited supra) and no such criterion has been referred to or brought on record to the effect that those, who had not worked during one year or two years during the period of consideration were not to be included. More so, from writ petitions filed giving rise to these writ appeals, it was clear that only five candidates, whose details have been mentioned above were aggrieved by the select list of 112 persons, who were regularised as Messenger/Driver-cum-Messenger in the Bank. The cases of the five petitioners were examined in detail and we have already held that their non-inclusion was on valid reasons. We do not find any ground on the basis of which, the select list can be set aside by the learned Single Judge. The Bank had, as per the judgment of the Division Bench dated 29.1.2010, already re-examined the details and taken a decision. Since the Bank had already re-examined the matter and issued a new select list, the details of which are given in Annexure B, there is no W.A. Nos.1539, 1540, 1541, 1542, 1616, 1668, 1702, 1705, 1735, 1818, 2100 & 2394 of 2015 -: 33 :- occasion for issuing a direction for fresh examination of the details, as directed by the learned Single Judge.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 1670 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

B.N. Nagarajan And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 3 May, 1979

S.V.Narayanappa (AIR 1967 SC 1071), R.N.Nanjundappa v. T.Thimmiah [(1972) 1 SCC 409)] and B.N.Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka [(1979) 4 SCC 507] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that W.A. Nos.1539, 1540, 1541, 1542, 1616, 1668, 1702, 1705, 1735, 1818, 2100 & 2394 of 2015 -: 15 :- regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and reqularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 218 - Full Document
1