Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.38 seconds)
WP(C)/539/2018 on 25 February, 2026 cites

Abdul Wahid vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 7 April, 2022

24. Now, coming to the Petitioner's second contention, which pertains to the resignation of Dr. Najibur Rahman on 02.07.2017 and the subsequent resolution by the Governing Body of West Goalpara College dated 08.09.2017, proposing to adjust the Petitioner's service against the aforesaid vacant post, the proposal of the Governing Body was rejected by the Deputy Director of Higher Education, Assam, through his letter dated 22.11.2017. The letter stated that there is no provision for the regularization of the services of lecturers appointed by the college authorities against non-sanctioned posts. This issue of Page No.# 23/25 regularization of services of non-sanctioned teachers against sanctioned posts had already been settled by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Abdul Wahid (supra) wherein, at paragraph 5, the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court held as follows:
Gauhati High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - K R Surana - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Mahendra Singh & Ors on 19 February, 2010

14. The learned counsel has also referred to the case of Union of India & Ors., Vs. Mahendra Singh , reported in MANU/SC/0919/2022 to Page No.# 15/25 buttress his case on the principle that if a statute provides a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. He referred to the case to support his argument that since the aforesaid Act and Rules do not provide for any provision of regularizing service without following the proper procedure for recruitment, i.e, the procedure followed after proper advertisement for the post, a person, in spite of working in the college, cannot be regularized.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 3 - Cited by 18 - G K Vyas - Full Document

R. Muthukumar vs The Chairman And Managing Director ... on 7 February, 2022

As far as his submission regarding the fact that some of the candidates, whose services have been regularized in spite of their names were not there in the Final Seniority List, the learned counsel has referred to the case of R. Muthukumar & Ors., Vs. Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO & Ors., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 151, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a principle axiomatic in this country's constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality. It was held that if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without having legal basis or justification that benefit cannot multiply or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel submits that though it may be a case where certain people whose services have been regularized, however, the same cannot be taken as a clue for regularizing the service of the Petitioner in the instant case without following the procedures as laid down by the aforesaid Act and Page No.# 16/25 Rules. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 3 submits that there is no case made out in the instant case to consider the prayer of the Petitioner and therefore, the instant writ petition should be rejected and dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 35 - S R Bhat - Full Document

C. Shivashankar vs Bangalore Mahanagara Palike And Ors. on 26 September, 2001

8. Mr. Sikdar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has also referred to the case of C. Shivashankar Vs. Bangalore Mahanagara Palike & Ors. , reported in (2001) ILR(Karnataka) 4907, wherein, it has been held that once a person's name is included in the Provisional Seniority List before publication of the Final Seniority List, if someone's name requires reviewing or rectifying, a notice should be given to the him, if he is put in a disadvantageous position by such rectification or correction. He submits that in the instant case, though the Petitioner's name was included in the Provisional Seniority List, his name was deleted from the Final Seniority List without any notice or any intimation to him. Therefore, the same goes against the ratio laid down in the instant case.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - H L Dattu - Full Document

Mohan Nath vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 20 June, 2022

In this connection, the learned counsel has further referred to the case of Mohan Nath Vs. The State of Assam & 3 Ors. , (WP(C)/7124/2017), decided on 20.06.2022, wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while relying on the case of Abdul Wahib (supra), held that since the appointment of the Petitioner was outside the purview of the OM of the State Government dated 17.07.2004 and as his name was not incorporated in the list of non-sanctioned Lecturers, consisting 354 nos. in terms of the decision of the Gauhati High Court, vide it's order dated 14.05.2009, passed in WP(C) No. 1103/2009 and WP(C) No. 724/2009, the Petitioner is not entitled to any such benefit of said OM dated 17.07.2004, for regularization of his service against a sanctioned post being serving in non-sanctioned post in the concerned college.
Gauhati High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M R Pathak - Full Document
1