Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)
K. Srinivasulu Setty vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By ... on 6 September, 1991 cites

The State Of Punjab vs Sodhi Sukhdev Singh on 15 November, 1960

19. Sri Balakrishna Murthy, however, contends that the order is a void order and has no existence in law. He relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jadgip Singh, . In that case the officiating Tahsildars in the State of pepsuwere confirmed by the Financial Commissioner of the State. At the time of confirmation of the Tahsildars no posts of Tahsildars were available. Subsequently, Rajpramukh of Pepsu created supernumerary posts of Tahsildars. After the merger of Pepsu with Punjab under the States Reorganisation Act, the successor Government of Punjab passed an order deconfirming those Tahsildars. The correctness of that order was before the Supreme Court. It was held that the order of the Financial Commissioner had no legal foundation under the relevant rules as there were no vacancies in which the confirmation could take place, therefore, the order was wholly void. It was further held that where a Government servant had no right to a post or to a particular status, he cannot claim advantage of the same and the subsequent order passed by the successor Government only recognises that position and does not amount to reducing him in rank. This judgment, in my view, does not help the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 371 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Nawabkhan Abbaskhan vs The State Of Gujarat on 19 February, 1974

21. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the above decision is that passed by State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the constitution, without giving notice to the person likely to be affected, if it affects fundamental right of a person, it is null and void and non-est in law against him, but if affects other rights, it is a voidable order and can be avoided by a competent court from its inception at the instance of an aggrieve party. In the instant case though the order reverting the petitioner to the post of Lecturer was passed without notice to the petitioner, yet it did not violate any constitutionally guaranteed right of the petitioner, so it is liable to be avoided by Court with retroactive force at the instance of the petitioner, but as admittedly that order is not quashed by any Court so far, it cannot be ignored in these proceedings when the petitioner acted upon it for a period of 8 years. I am not, therefore, prepared to accept the contention of the petitioner that he would be deemed to be holding the post of Director, Annamacharya Project though he is not working in the said post for the last 8 years. It follows that the post of Director, Annamacharya Project has fallen vacant and respondents 1 and 2 can fill up that post in accordance with law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 128 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1