Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.93 seconds)Acharya Madhavi Bhavin & 115 vs State Of Gujarat & on 7 September, 2016
15. Learned advocate has referred to the judgment
of this Court in the case of Acharya Madhavi (Supra) to
contend that it was State's responsibility after the
observations made by the Division Bench in Letters Patent
Appeal No.2986 of 2010 that the State to consider to fail
in its scheme to relax the age and select qualified and
experienced ad-hoc lecturer through any limited
competitive examination. It would be pertinent to observe
that the very judgment was subject matter of challenge by
the very petitioner namely Acharya Madhvi in Letters
Patent Appeal No.1184 of 2017, where the question so far
as raised in Special Civil Application No.8152 of 2015
was considered in para-7.1 by the Letters Patent Appeal
Bench which is limited to the extent to consider putting
all the ad-hoc lecturers appointed after May-2008 on par
with all those ad-hoc lecturers appointed prior to May-
2008 from the date of their initial appointment. Insofar
as the observation of creating a scheme, it would be
pertinent to reproduce para-9 which ultimately the
Letters Patent Appeal Bench had considered in the group
of petitions "before parting with the present order, we
may observe that the State Government is not justified in
filling up the post of Professors/Lecturers by ad-hoc
Lecturers/Professors for number of years. To continue
such post on ad-hoc basis shall not be in the large
Page 17 of 20
Downloaded on : Sat Feb 27 13:55:12 IST 2021
C/SCA/4583/2018 JUDGMENT
interest of the students. Therefore, all efforts shall be
made by the State/GPSC to see that the post of Lecturers/
Professors/Assistant Professors /Assistant Lecturers/
Teaching Staff in the Polytechnics/Engineering shall be
filled in on regular basis, selected by GPSC at the
earliest". It is pertinent to observe that Division
Bench in LPA has, in fact, given approval for appointment
of teaching staff through selection process by GPSC.
Chander Mohan Negi vs State Of H.P. & Others on 13 July, 2020
This
judgment was carried before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Chander Mohan Negi (Supra), wherein the Apex
Court in para-11 has held as under:-
Panjwani Pooja Murlidhar & 17 vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 20 February, 2014
4.1 Reliance is placed upon the unreported judgment
of this case in the case of Panjwani Pooja Murlidhar &
Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application
No.709 of 2014 and contended that once set of ad-hoc
employee cannot be substituted by another set of ad-hoc
employee and therefore, the case was justified in
undertaking the process of selection through GPSC.
Pankaj Kumar vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh Education ... on 14 December, 2016
13. Learned advocate has placed reliance on the
judgment of Himpachal Pradesh High Court in the case of
Pankaj Kumar (Supra), the relevant paras of the judgment
would indicate that the issue was with regards to the
appointment of teacher made under the Himachal Pradesh
Prathmik Sahayak Adhyapak/Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT)
Scheme, 2003 and the question that was for consideration
before the Division Bench is whether the selection of the
teacher made in terms of the policies made by the State
aimed had to provided primary education to the needy and
poor hailing from tribal, hard and difficult areas, who
are entitled to it as a matter of right, being a
fundamental right, and are poor, read with the fact that
the regular/contractual teachers were not interested to
work in the said areas, is illegal and not entitled to
regularization? In this background, it is observed with
some pain that the State Government when required has
utilized the services of said teachers when the said
Page 15 of 20
Downloaded on : Sat Feb 27 13:55:12 IST 2021
C/SCA/4583/2018 JUDGMENT
teachers have lost their youth in performing their duties
for the Government and had legitimate expectation.
1