Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.42 seconds)
Union Of India & Anr vs Kartick Chandra Mondal & Anr on 15 January, 2010 cites

Bachhittar Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 7 March, 1962

In the case of Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab a Constitution Bench of this Court had to consider the effect of an order passed by a Minister on a file, which order was not communicated. This Court, relying upon Article 166(1) of the Constitution, held that the order of the Revenue Minister, PEPSU could not amount to an order by the State Government unless it was expressed in the name of Rajpramukh as required by the said article and was then communicated to the party concerned. This is how 13 this Court dealt with the effect of the noting by a Minister on the file:
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 393 - J R Mudholkar - Full Document

Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006

14.The next issue that we are now required to consider is whether the aforesaid respondents could have been directed to be so absorbed. Similar issues regarding absorption or regularisation of casual labours are raised time and again in various branches and offices of the Government and this Court has had the opportunity to deal with such issues in the past in several cases. We attempt to refer to two decisions of this Court which are considered to be the latest decisions and landmark decisions and which are binding on us. We may refer to the constitutional bench decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. The relevant portion of the said judgment, viz., paragraphs 43 & 45, are as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 4959 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

State Of Bihar vs Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors on 20 March, 2009

16.In our considered opinion, the ratio of both the aforesaid decisions are clearly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In our considered opinion, there is misplaced sympathy shown in the case of the respondents who have worked with the appellants only for two years, i.e., from 1981 to 1983. Even assuming that the similarly placed persons were ordered to be absorbed, the same if done erroneously cannot become the foundation for perpetuating further illegality. If an appointment is made illegally or irregularly, the same cannot be the basis of further appointment. An erroneous decision cannot be permitted to perpetuate further error to the detriment of the general welfare of the public or a considerable section. This has been the consistent approach of this Court. However, we intend to refer to a latest decision of this Court on this point in the case of State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan 20 Singh & Others [(2009) 5 SCC 69], the relevant portion of which is extracted hereinbelow: -
Supreme Court of India Cites 58 - Cited by 607 - G S Singhvi - Full Document
1   2 Next