Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.38 seconds)
Pawan Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 June, 2024 cites

Manish Gupta vs President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti on 21 April, 2022

9. The learned Additional Advocate General of the State would Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:21928 Page 194 of 201 submit that as per Clause 6.5 of the policy 03 categories of engagement of Guest Lecturers for the post of Assistant Professor have been introduced. As per the category 1 the candidate should be P.hd in respective subject, for Category 2 the candidates should be cleared NET/SET and for Category 3 the candidate should be M.Phil in respective subject. Apart from the post of Guest Lecturer, a new post has also been created in the policy which is known as Guest Teaching Assistant and the qualification prescribed for this post is Post Graduation with minimum 55% marks for Specially abled Person Post Graduation with 50% marks and as per clause 9.5 if performance of Guest Lecturer of Category 1, 2 and 3, Guest Librarian and Guest Sport Officer the performance is satisfactory and no regular is made then their engagement will be continued and no advertisement will be issued. Similarly, for engagement of Guest Teaching Assistant/Library Assistant and Sport Officer Assistant, the same clause has been made which clearly protected their tenure of engagement and in fact this policy in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Manish Gupta (Supra), as such the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Clause 9.5 and 9.6 are required to be reconsidered by the State, is misconceived and deserves to be rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 36 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Rattan Lal & Ors. Etc.Etc vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 16 August, 1985

"12. A perusal of the advertisement dated 24 th June, 2016 issued by the Principal, Government Kamla Raja Girls Post Graduate Autonomous College, Gwalior, which is at Annexure P2 of the Appeal Paper Book and the advertisement dated 2 nd July, 2016 issued by the Principal, SMS Government Model Science College, Gwalior, M.P., which is at Annexure P3 of the Appeal Paper Book, would show that the appointments were to be made after the candidates had gone through due selection procedure. Though Shri Nataraj, learned ASG has strenuously urged that the appointments of the appellants were as guest lecturers and not as ad hoc Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:21928 Page 193 of 201 employees, from the nature of the advertisements, it could clearly be seen that the appellants were appointed on ad hoc basis. It is a settled principle of law that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rattan Lal and others vs. State of Haryana and others1 and on the order of this Court in the case of Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab and others2.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 177 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Harpratap Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 9 January, 2019

"12. A perusal of the advertisement dated 24 th June, 2016 issued by the Principal, Government Kamla Raja Girls Post Graduate Autonomous College, Gwalior, which is at Annexure P2 of the Appeal Paper Book and the advertisement dated 2 nd July, 2016 issued by the Principal, SMS Government Model Science College, Gwalior, M.P., which is at Annexure P3 of the Appeal Paper Book, would show that the appointments were to be made after the candidates had gone through due selection procedure. Though Shri Nataraj, learned ASG has strenuously urged that the appointments of the appellants were as guest lecturers and not as ad hoc Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:21928 Page 193 of 201 employees, from the nature of the advertisements, it could clearly be seen that the appellants were appointed on ad hoc basis. It is a settled principle of law that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rattan Lal and others vs. State of Haryana and others1 and on the order of this Court in the case of Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab and others2.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 122 - Full Document

Asif Hameed & Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. Etc. Etc on 3 May, 1989

"16. The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy. Nor are courts Advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review [vide : Asif Hameed v. State of J&K - 1989 Supp (2) SCC 364; Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd., v. Union of India - 1990 (3) SCC 223; Khoday Distilleries v. State of Karnataka - 1996 (10) SCC 304, Balco Employees Union v. Union of India - 2002 (2) SCC 333), State of Orissa vs. Gopinath Dash - 2005 (13) SCC 495 and Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs. Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:21928 Page 198 of 201 State of Andhra Pradesh - 2006 (4) SCC 162]."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 204 - K Singh - Full Document

Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 1990

"16. The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy. Nor are courts Advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review [vide : Asif Hameed v. State of J&K - 1989 Supp (2) SCC 364; Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd., v. Union of India - 1990 (3) SCC 223; Khoday Distilleries v. State of Karnataka - 1996 (10) SCC 304, Balco Employees Union v. Union of India - 2002 (2) SCC 333), State of Orissa vs. Gopinath Dash - 2005 (13) SCC 495 and Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs. Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:21928 Page 198 of 201 State of Andhra Pradesh - 2006 (4) SCC 162]."
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 468 - T K Thommen - Full Document

M/S. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 15 December, 1995

"16. The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy. Nor are courts Advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review [vide : Asif Hameed v. State of J&K - 1989 Supp (2) SCC 364; Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd., v. Union of India - 1990 (3) SCC 223; Khoday Distilleries v. State of Karnataka - 1996 (10) SCC 304, Balco Employees Union v. Union of India - 2002 (2) SCC 333), State of Orissa vs. Gopinath Dash - 2005 (13) SCC 495 and Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs. Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:21928 Page 198 of 201 State of Andhra Pradesh - 2006 (4) SCC 162]."
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 68 - Full Document

Balco Employees Union (Regd.) vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 December, 2001

"16. The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy. Nor are courts Advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review [vide : Asif Hameed v. State of J&K - 1989 Supp (2) SCC 364; Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd., v. Union of India - 1990 (3) SCC 223; Khoday Distilleries v. State of Karnataka - 1996 (10) SCC 304, Balco Employees Union v. Union of India - 2002 (2) SCC 333), State of Orissa vs. Gopinath Dash - 2005 (13) SCC 495 and Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs. Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:21928 Page 198 of 201 State of Andhra Pradesh - 2006 (4) SCC 162]."
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 1192 - Full Document

State Of Orissa & Ors vs Gopinath Dash & Ors on 9 December, 2005

"16. The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy. Nor are courts Advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review [vide : Asif Hameed v. State of J&K - 1989 Supp (2) SCC 364; Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd., v. Union of India - 1990 (3) SCC 223; Khoday Distilleries v. State of Karnataka - 1996 (10) SCC 304, Balco Employees Union v. Union of India - 2002 (2) SCC 333), State of Orissa vs. Gopinath Dash - 2005 (13) SCC 495 and Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs. Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:21928 Page 198 of 201 State of Andhra Pradesh - 2006 (4) SCC 162]."
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 173 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next