Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 54 (0.49 seconds)Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
Question, however, is whether the appointments in the instant case could be described as illegal and if they were not, whether the State could be directed to regularise the services of the degree-holder Junior Engineers who have worked as ad hoc Assistant Engineers for such a long period, not only on the analogy of the legislative enactment for regularisation but also on the principle underlying para 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] .
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
B.N. Nagarajan And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 3 May, 1979
17. Dr. Pillay, however, strongly relied upon the observations made in Para 53 in Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] which reads as under: (SCC p. 42, para 53)
53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa [AIR 1967 SC 1071 : (1967) 1 SCR 128] , R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah [(1972) 1 SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.(emphasis in original)
A case of regularisation which thus attained finality and was not sub judice would not come within the purview of exception to the rule contained in Para 53 of the said judgment. The appellants' case, thus, does not come within the purview thereof. Only those cases where regularisations had already been made were not to be reopened. It is not in dispute that services of the appellants were terminated as far back as in 1987 and they did not question the legality or validity of the said order.
Article 335 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Karnataka & Ors vs M.L. Kesari & Ors on 3 August, 2010
11.Elaborating upon the principles laid down in Umadevi (3) case [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] and explaining the difference between irregular and illegal appointments in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari [(2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] , this Court held as under: (M.L. Kesari case [(2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] , SCC p. 250, para 7)
7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against regularisation enunciated in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , if the following conditions are fulfilled: