Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 36 (0.60 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 162 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Piara Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 12 August, 1992
(Vide: Delhi Development Horticulture Employees
Union v. Delhi Admn., State of Haryana v. Piara Singh,
Excise Supdt. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao, Arun
Tewari.
State Of Orissa & Anr vs Mamata Mohanty on 9 February, 2011
In State of Orissa & Anr. vs. Mamata Mohanty,
2011 3 SCC 436, it was observed as under:
A. Umarani vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies And ... on 28 July, 2004
In Manager, Reserve Bank of India, bangalore v. S.
Mani and Others [ (2005) 5 scc 100], Umarani (supra)
was followed holding that in law 240 days of continuous
service by itself give rise to permanence which reason
has weight with the opinion of learned single Judge of
.
Raj Narain Prasad And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 18 January, 1996
In Raj Narain Prasad and Others v. State of U. P.
and Others [ (1998) 8 SCC 473] yet again no law has
been laid down.
R. N. Nanjundappa vs T. Thimmiah & Anr on 8 December, 1971
65. Strong reliance has been placed by mr. Chaudhary
on R. N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah and Anr. [ (1972)
2 SCR 799] for the proposition that irregular employees
can be regularized. Therein it was held :"the contention
on behalf of the State that a rule under Article 309 for
regularisation of the appointment of a person would be
a form of recruitment read with reference to power
under Article 162 is unsound and unacceptable. The
executive has the power to appoint. That power may
have its source in Article 162.