Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Piara Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 12 August, 1992
Para 47 of Piara Singh's case states that where an ad
hoc or temporary employment is necessitated on account of
exigency of administration, the incumbent should be drawn
from the employment exchange. This requirement has a rider
namely, "unless it cannot brook delay". As already stated,
there was a pressing cause here, which is almost writ large
on the face of the record. The non-information to the
employment exchange had, therefore, caused no dent to the
appointments.
Delhi Development Horticulture ... vs Delhi Administration, Delhi And Ors on 4 February, 1992
16. The only other case which I propose to note, in view of
strong reliance on it by Shri Verma, is Delhi Development
Horticulture Employees Union vs Delhi Administration, 1992
(4) SCC 99. Shri Verma drew my attention to the general
observations made by the Bench in para 23 in which a mention
was made about the common practice to ignore employment
exchanges and to employ and get employed persons who are
either not registered with the employment exchange or who,
though registered, are lower in the waiting list in the
employment register. The Bench stated that such employment
is sought and given for "various illegal considerations
including money". The motivating force to do so is to get
the benefit of regularisation after one has continued to
work for 240 days or more, knowing about the judicial trend
that those who have completed 240 days or more are directed
to be automatically regularised. It was also observed that
this has led to development of "good deal of illegal
employment market resulting in a new source of corruption
and frustration of those who are waiting in the employment
exchange for years".
Bihar School Examination Board vs Subhas Chandra Sinha, & Ors on 10 March, 1970
In support of this
contention, strong reliance is placed on the decision of
this court in Bihar School Examination Board vs. Subhash
Chandra Sinha and others, 1970 (3) SCR 963. According to
Shri Shanti Bhushan, this decision has not said anything
contrary to the well settled principle that where adverse
civil consequences follow natural justice has to be complied
with.
Ex. Capt. K. Balasubramanian Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr. Etc on 14 March, 1991
38. I may deal with another decision pressed into service
by Shri Verma in this context. The same is S.K.
Balasubramanian vs. State of Tamilnadu, 1991 (2) SCC 708.
The learned counsel has read out to me from this decision
paragraph 9 at pages 713 and 714 and contended that because
what has been stated therein, it could be said that even if
an order is invalid, there would be no question of affording
an opportunity of hearing. I am afraid that the learned
counsel has misunderstood the purport of what has been
stated therein. I have said so because a perusal of that
para shows that this Court had said about no question of
affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners
before passing the impugned order dated March 3, 1980,
because the Court found that that order was founded on
Government orders dated November 16, 1976 and June 15, 1977,
which were invalid according to the Court as those orders
had altered the principle of fixation of seniority contained
in Rule 35 of the General Rules, which could have been done
only by suitably amending the Rule, and not by issuing
administrative instructions. Having found that the order in
favour of the petitioners dated March 3, 1980 was founded on
untenable principle of fixation of seniority, the court
said, and with respect rightly, that no opportunity was
required to be given to the petitioners who sought to
support their seniority position on the principles as
embodied in the Orders dated November 16, 1976 and June 15,
1977. the foundation of the order dated March 3, 1980 having
fallen to the ground, no opportunity was necessary to be
given to sustain the order dated March 3, 1980, as that
order was founded on wrong principles of seniority. This
being the position, I would indeed say that Shri Verma may
not have advanced this contention.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Assam & Ors vs Shri Kanak Chandra Dutta on 3 October, 1966
21. Shri Verma would not like us to place much reliance on
what was stated on the floor of the Assembly, because the
questions had been answered, as per the State's case put up
in counter-affidavit filed here, on the information
furnished by Dr. A.A. Mallik himself. However, as on
subsequent inquiry it was found that all informations
furnished by Dr. Mallik were false, a fresh communication
was addressed by the Department to the Assembly.