Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.22 seconds)
Lalji P vs The Chief Post Master General Kerala ... on 9 February, 2023 cites

State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Piara Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 12 August, 1992

In other words, they want to terminate the applicant who is a temporary hand and replace him with a new batch of temporary hands which is illegal and against the dictum in State of Harayana and Ors v Piara Singh and Ors [(1992) 4 SCC 118], Barinder Kaur v Gurunanak Dev University and Ors CWP No. 6377/2014 and Dr. Pramod Anandrao Pathre v State of Maharashtra [(2007) 109 Bom L R 962]. He has also relied on Annexure A6 and A7 judgments of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1417 of 2017 and Writ Appeal No. 863 of 2018; a set of temporary hands can not be replaced by another set of temporary hands. It is illegal. Hence, he has sought the reliefs, as aforestated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 1473 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Dr. Pramod Anantrao Pathre vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 3 May, 2007

In other words, they want to terminate the applicant who is a temporary hand and replace him with a new batch of temporary hands which is illegal and against the dictum in State of Harayana and Ors v Piara Singh and Ors [(1992) 4 SCC 118], Barinder Kaur v Gurunanak Dev University and Ors CWP No. 6377/2014 and Dr. Pramod Anandrao Pathre v State of Maharashtra [(2007) 109 Bom L R 962]. He has also relied on Annexure A6 and A7 judgments of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Appeal No.1417 of 2017 and Writ Appeal No. 863 of 2018; a set of temporary hands can not be replaced by another set of temporary hands. It is illegal. Hence, he has sought the reliefs, as aforestated.
Bombay High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 2 - S J Vazifdar - Full Document

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

In this connection, it is apposite to notice certain observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Ors v Umadevi and Ors [(2006) 4 SCC 1] where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has deprecated the tendency of temporary employees who came through backdoor or on daily wages approaching courts seeking directions to make them permanent in their posts and to prevent regular recruitment to the posts. The Supreme Court has called them as 'litigious employment'. According to Supreme Court, such a class of employment will seriously impair the constitutional scheme, that courts desist from issuing orders preventing regular selection or recruitment at the instance of such persons -15- and from issuing directions for continuance of those who have not secured regular engagements as per procedure established, that methods adopted by such persons will defeat the concept of social justice and equal opportunity for all, subject to affirmative action in the matter of public employment as recognised by our Constitution. Here the applicant has made untrue claims, he was not even a substitute but was appointed only on stop-gap measure to fill in the exigencies of time.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 1670 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document
1