Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.29 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Arundhat1 Ajit Pargaonkar vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 31 August, 1994
"It has not been disputed that that petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis. At the time of his appointment, recruitment rules framed in terms of the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India had not been followed. The State while granting appointment to a person is not only bound to follow the recruitment rules made in terms of the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India but is also bound to give effect to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No right, far less any enforceable right flows from such illegal appointments. The recruitment rules, inter alia, provide for grant of equal opportunity to be considered for appointment to all eligible candidates. A person who is appointed through backdoor cannot claim permanence only because he had been working for some time. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of Dr. Arimdhati Ajit Pargaonkar v. State of Maharashtra and others, and several decisions of the Apex Court following the same. It is farther well known in view of several decisions of the Apex Court that only an irregular appointment can be regularised and not an illegal appointment.
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr vs Dharam Bir on 8 June, 1998
It is now also well settled in view of the recent decisions of the Apex Court in State of M.P. and others v. Dharam Bir,
that the status of a person cannot be changed with the passage of time. A person who was appointed on temporary or ad hoc basis, thus cannot claim the status of a permanent servant only because he had worked for some time. The said decision along with other decisions had been considered by this Court in a large number of cases.
Municipal Board, Pratabgarh And Anr. vs Mahendra Singh Chawla And Ors. on 11 October, 1982
8. Having regard to the large volume of decisions of the Apex Court referred to in the aforementioned judgment, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted. The decision of the Apex Court in Municipal Board, Pratabgarh (supra), upon which the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance, in the facts situation of the present-case, is not applicable for even on facts, the Tribunal has held that the petitioner had not completed five years of service, and in any event in a case of this nature, no sympathy shown and any sympathy shown would be a misplaced one.
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 162 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
West Bengal Essential Commodities ... vs Md. Sarif on 18 August, 1999
Reference in this connection, however, may be made to Biman Ch, Karmakar v. State of West Bengal, reported in 1999 (2) CHN 289 and West Bengal, Essential Commodities Supply Corporation Limited v. Md. Sarif reported in 2000 (1) CHN 210 = 2000 (2) SLR 229 (Cal.). The aforementioned circular letter dated 3rd August, 1979 is not a statute. Even a policy decision cannot be adopted in derogation of statutory rules. Even the said purported memorandum dated 3rd August, 1979 is not an executive instruction within the meaning of Article 162 of the Constitution of India."
R. N. Nanjundappa vs T. Thimmiah & Anr on 8 December, 1971
It is further well settled that regularisation cannot be a mode of recruitment (See R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah, and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, which decisions have been considered by the Apex Court in K Sreenivasa Reddy and others v. Government ofAndhra Pradesh and others, .