Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.54 seconds)
Kuldeep Kumar Gupta & 7 Ors. vs State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Nagar ... on 14 November, 2013 cites

Union Public Service Commission vs Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela & Others on 2 February, 2006

In the case of Union Public Service Commission versus Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela and others reported in (2006) 2 SCC 482 in paragraph no. 12 the apex court has held that any regular appointment made on a post under the State or Union without issuing advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper selection, where all eligible candidates do not get a fair chance to compete would violate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution. Paragraph 12 of the report is as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 498 - G P Mathur - Full Document

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

In the case of Pushpa Srivastava (supra), Pushpa Srivastava was appointed on a consolidated fixed compensation on contract basis for a period of three months. It was specifically stated in the appointment order that the appointment was purely on ad hoc basis, liable for termination without any notice on either side. The appointment was extended from time to time. On 14.1.1991, five posts including the post on which Pushpa Srivastava was working, were abolished. As the term of Pushpa Srivastava was coming to an end, she preferred a writ petition in this Court. Her writ petition was allowed and a direction was issued to put her back on duty on the post held by her. A further direction was issued to regularise her services within three months. The order passed by this court was set aside by the apex court. It was held that the appointment of Pushpa Srivastava was purely ad hoc and on a contractual basis for a limited period and by expiry of the period of six months, the right to remain in the post came to an end. The apex court stated that the view they were taking was the only view possible and set aside the judgment of the High Court which had given relief to the appointee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 316 - S Mohan - Full Document
1