Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)
State Of West Bengal & Anr vs Dr. Saktilal Choudhury & Ors on 13 October, 2023 cites

State Of Karnataka & Ors vs M.L. Kesari & Ors on 3 August, 2010

15. Learned Counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. v. M.L. Kesari & Ors., reported at (2010) 9 SCC 247 and in particular on paragraph 7 of the reported judgment, in support of his submission that regularization of an employee may be allowed when the appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been 9 selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1834 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Daya Lal & Ors on 13 January, 2011

14. Learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal & Ors., reported at (2011) 2 SCC 429 and in particular paragraph 12 of the reported judgment in support of his submission that the High Courts, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 869 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Calcutta State Transport Corporation & ... vs Bimal Chandra Roy & Ors on 11 March, 2021

16. Finally, Mr. Sen relied on the decision of a Coordinate Bench rendered on March 11, 2021 in MAT 1671 of 2019 (Calcutta State Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Bimal Chandra Roy & Ors.) and in particular on paragraphs 17 and 18 of the judgment to buttress his submission that the appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating thereof do not confer any right on the appointees and the Courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re-engagement nor make their service permanent and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not issue directions for absorption, regularization or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner in terms of the constitutional scheme and that the Courts must be careful that they should not lend themselves to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - A Roy - Full Document
1