Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 61 (0.73 seconds)Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
In view of the fact that the
learned counsel for the petitioner has cited number of judgments, which were
passed subsequent to the Constitution Bench judgment, stating that Paragraph
(53) of the ?Umadevi Case? has been interpreted in different ways and under
different circumstances and the present case is also to be considered and a
direction to be issued for regularization. In view of the fact that large
number of judgments are cited before this Court in the matter of
regularization and permanent absorption, now, this Court has to first decide
what all are the judgments which all are having a ?binding precedent? and on
this reason, this Court has to consider very interpretation of the concept
regarding ?binding precedent?.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
B.N. Nagarajan And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 3 May, 1979
?17. Dr. Pillay, however, strongly relied upon the observations made in
Para 53 in Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] which reads as
under: (SCC p. 42, para 53)
?53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular
appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v.
S.V. Narayanappa [AIR 1967 SC 1071 : (1967) 1 SCR 128] , R.N. Nanjundappa v.
T. Thimmiah [(1972) 1 SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka
[(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4] 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
abovereferred 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 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 regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as
per the constitutional scheme.?(emphasis in original)
A case of regularisation which thus attained finality and was not sub judice
would not come within the purview of exception to the rule contained in Para
53 of the said judgment. The appellants' case, thus, does not come within the
purview thereof. Only those cases where regularisations had already been made
were not to be reopened. It is not in dispute that services of the appellants
were terminated as far back as in 1987 and they did not question the legality
or validity of the said order.
State Of Punjab vs Jagdip Singh & Ors on 19 September, 1963
The earlier Constitution Bench in the case of State
of Punjab Vs. Jagdip Singh, held that where a Government Servant has no right
to a post or to a particular status, though an authority under the Government
acting beyond its competence had purported to give that person a status which
it was not entitled to give he will not in law be deemed to have been validly
appointed to the post or given the particular status.
State Of Karnataka & Ors vs M.L. Kesari & Ors on 3 August, 2010
?11.Elaborating upon the principles laid down in Umadevi (3) case
[(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] and explaining the difference between
irregular and illegal appointments in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari
[(2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] , this Court held as under: (M.L.
Kesari case [(2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] , SCC p. 250, para 7)
?7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general
principles against ?regularisation? enunciated in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1
: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , if the following conditions are fulfilled: