Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.63 seconds)Katyani Dayal And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 26 March, 1980
In Katyani Dayal's case (Supra), the law has been laid down in the following terms:-
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Inder Singh & Ors. Etc on 14 October, 1997
"18. The concept of "deputation" is well understood in service law and has a recognized meaning. "Deputation" has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary meaning of the word "deputation" is of no help. In simple words "deputation" means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per the Recruitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not is decided by the authority who controls the service or post from which the employee is transferred. There can be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and he would, therefore, know his rights and privileges in the deputation post. The law on deputation and repatriation is quite settled as we have also seen in various judgments which we have referred to above. There is no escape for the respondents now to go back to their parent departments and working there as Constables or Head Constables as the case may be."
B. N. Nagarajan And Ors vs State Of Mysore And Ors on 1 March, 1966
39. The inevitable sequitur from these constitutional provisions is that the President, acting directly or through officers subordinate to him, is free to constitute a service (with as many cadres as he chooses), to create posts without constituting a service or to create posts outside (the cadres of) the constituted services. The President (or the person directed by him) may, or, again, if he so chooses he may not, make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to such service or posts. He is also free to make or not to make appointments to such services or posts. Nor is it obligatory for him to make rules of recruitment etc. before a service may be constituted or a post created or filled. But if there is an Act of Parliament or a rule under the proviso to Article 309 on the matter, the executive power, under Articles 53 and 73, may not be exercised in a manner inconsistent with or contrary to such Act or rule (vide B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore; State of Kerala v. M.K. Krishnan Nair)"
State Of Kerala vs M. K. Krishnan Nair & Ors.Andk. ... on 14 February, 1978
39. The inevitable sequitur from these constitutional provisions is that the President, acting directly or through officers subordinate to him, is free to constitute a service (with as many cadres as he chooses), to create posts without constituting a service or to create posts outside (the cadres of) the constituted services. The President (or the person directed by him) may, or, again, if he so chooses he may not, make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to such service or posts. He is also free to make or not to make appointments to such services or posts. Nor is it obligatory for him to make rules of recruitment etc. before a service may be constituted or a post created or filled. But if there is an Act of Parliament or a rule under the proviso to Article 309 on the matter, the executive power, under Articles 53 and 73, may not be exercised in a manner inconsistent with or contrary to such Act or rule (vide B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore; State of Kerala v. M.K. Krishnan Nair)"
S. L. Kapoor vs Jagmohan & Ors on 18 September, 1980
In S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan and Ors., , it has been held:-
Gullapalli Nageswara Rao And Others vs Andhra Pradesh State Road ... on 5 November, 1958
12. The learned counsel would urge that compliance of the principles of natural justice would mean hearing by a person and/or authority, who can grant relief. But having regard to the directions of the Board, the Commissioner being bound thereby purported grant of hearing was a mere formality. Reliance in this connection has been placed on Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and Ors. v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Anr., .
State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996
"11. The concept of principles of natural justice has undergone a radical change. It is not in every case, that the High Courts would entertain a writ application only on the ground that violation of principles of natural justice has been alleged. The apex court, in State Bank of Patiala and Ors. v. S.K. Sharma has clearly held that a person complaining about the violation of the principles of natural justice must show causation of a prejudice against him by reason of such violation. The apex court has held that the principles of natural justice, may be said to have been violated which require an intervention when no hearing, no opportunity or no notice has been given.
Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993
Reference in this connection may also be made to Managing Director, E.C.I.L. v. B. Karunakar, reported in AIR 1994 SC 1076. The question as to the effect of non-grant of enough opportunity to the learned counsel for the appellant by the Commission to meet the allegations made in the supplementary affidavit requires investigation. As to what extent the appellant has suffered prejudice would be a question which would fall for a decision of a Higher Court."