Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 44 (0.33 seconds)Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S.C.Chandra & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 21 August, 2007
28. More significant case, having close proximity with the present
one is the judgment in S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand [S.C.
Page 20 of 43
// 21 //
Chandra v. State of Jharkhand, (2007) 8 SCC 279 : (2007) 2 SCC
(L&S) 897] . In that case Hindustan Copper Ltd. (HCL), the
Government of India enterprise, had established a school. Employees
of that school claimed that their real employer was HCL. Admitted
facts were that the school was established by HCL with the object of
benefitting children of the workers of HCL. Even the financial
assistance was provided to the schools. The Court, however, came to
the conclusion that only by giving financial assistance HCL did not
become the employer of teachers and staff working in the school. They
were held to be the employees of the Managing Committee of the
school. That part of the discussion which has direct bearing on the
present case runs as follows:-- (SCC p. 286, para 8)
Jagbir Singh vs Haryana Agricultural University on 10 July, 2014
In Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg.
Board [(2009) 15 SCC 327 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 545] , this Court
noted that as on the date of retrenchment, Respondent 1 had worked
for less than 11 months and held : (SCC p. 335, paras 14-15)
"14. It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent
time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment
passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an
award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed.
The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the
workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date
of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be
proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded.
This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not
hold a post and a permanent employee.
State Of Haryana vs Subash Chander Marwaha And Ors on 2 May, 1973
In State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha and
Others, (supra) 15 vacancies of Subordinate Judges were
advertised, and out of the selection list only 7, who had
secured more than 55% marks, were appointed, although
under the relevant rules the eligibility condition required only
45% marks. Since the High Court had recommended earlier, to
the Punjab Government that only the candidates securing 55%
marks or more should be appointed as Subordinate Judges, the
other candidates included in the select list were not appointed.
They filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming a
right of being appointed on the ground that vacancies existed
and they were qualified and were found suitable. The writ
application was allowed. While reversing the decision of the
High Court, it was observed by this Court that it was open to
the Government to decide how MANY appointments should be
made and although the High Court had appreciated the
position correctly, it had ``somehow persuaded itself to spell
out a right in the candidates because in fact there were 15
vacancies''. It was expressly ruled that the existence of
vacancies does not give a legal right to a selected candidate.
Neelima Shangla Ph.D. Candidate vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 17 September, 1986
It is true that the claim of the
petitioner in the case of Miss Neelima Shangla v. State of
Haryana was allowed by this Court but, not on the ground that
Page 39 of 43
// 40 //
she had acquired any right by her selection and existence of
vacancies. The fact was that the matter had been referred to
the Public Service Commission which sent to the Government
only the names of 17 candidates belonging to the general
category on the assumption that only 17 posts were to be filled
up. The Government accordingly made only 17 appointments
and stated before the Court that they were unable to select and
appoint more candidates as the Commission had not
recommended any other candidate. In this background it was
observed that it is, of course, open to the Government not to fill
up all the vacancies for a valid reason, but the selection cannot
be arbitrarily restricted to a few candidates notwithstanding
the number of vacancies and the availability of qualified
candidates; and there must be a conscious application of mind
by the Government and the High Court before the number of
persons selected for appointment is restricted. The fact that it
was not for the Public Service Commission to take a decision
in this regard was emphasised in this judgment. None of these
decisions, therefore, supports the appellant".