Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.21 seconds)
State Of Madhya Pradesh Through The ... vs Mahendra Pratap Singh Choudhary And ... on 7 September, 2007 cites

R.C.Sahi & Ors., C.M. Bahuguna & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors., Union Of India & Ors on 10 November, 1998

In the case of R.C. Sahi and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , the Supreme Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 for doing complete justice in any cause or matter, directed for creation of supernumerary post and while doing so, precedents in earlier similar matters were also taken into consideration in which similar directions were given.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd vs Smt. A. Radhika Thirumalai on 9 October, 1996

The case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. A. Radhika Thirumalai , which has also been relied on by the counsel for the appellant/State is also not helpful to the State, as it is also the case of the recruitment on compassionate ground. The facts of the present case are quite different. Here in this case, the post was vacant, and advertisement was issued and respondents No. 1 & 2 were selected by the Public Service Commission and list expired during the pendency of litigation. When the State has granted benefit to the employees those who were appointed on ad hoc basis under back door entries after relaxation in rules and have denied the appointment to the legitimate persons those who were selected on merits through Public Service Commission. The action of the State cannot be held to be legal and proper. In such circumstances, the order for creation of supernumerary post can be passed and, in our considered opinion, the Single Judge has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. Supreme Court has clearly held that while granting relief original cause of action may be considered. As argued, even after vacating stay order, the petition was not finally decided and only two appointments were made. The respondents were waiting for the disposal of the writ petition, in which orders were passed against them. When even after the dismissal of writ petition State acted contrary to the interest of the respondents and in favour of those who were involved in getting wrong benefit, ultimately the respondents No. 1 and 2 had filed O.A. No. 1711/99.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 124 - Full Document
1