cites: 71628019

Namit Sharma vs Union Of India on 13 September, 2012

opinion that the view taken by the learned Division Bench in Bir Pal Singh's and Govind Ram's cases does not lay down the correct law and are accordingly over ruled and the view taken by Coordinate Division Bench in Ashok of Dutt Sharma's case is affirmed.

Supreme Court of India Cites 94 - Cited by 268 - S Kumar - Full Document

Bir Pal Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 1 January, 2016

Therefore, the judgment in Piara Singh's case cannot be blindly applied to the facts of the present cases where the petitioners have been appointed on a ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:39:56 :::HCHP 14 fixed term contractual appointment and after lapse of the period of contract, are claiming the continuation of .

Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 37 - Full Document

Govind Ram And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 16 December, 2015

7. Whereas another Division Bench of this Court in Bir Pal Singh's case (supra), and earlier to that in case of Govind Ram and others vs. Union of India and others, CWP No.4446/2014 decided on 16.12.2015, allowed the petition by observing as under:

Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

Gridco Limited & Anr vs Sadananda Doloi & Ors on 16 December, 2011

16. However, judicial review cannot extend to the Court acting as an appellate authority sitting in judgment over the decision. The Court cannot sit in the arm chair of the administrator to decide whether more reasonable decision or course of action could have been taken in the circumstances. (Refer Gridco Ltd. & Another vs. Sadananda Doloi & Ors, AIR 2012 SC 729).

Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 171 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Md. Abdul Kadir & Anr vs Director General Of Police, Assam & Ors on 22 April, 2009

In order to buttress their submission reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Abdul Kadir and another vs. Director General of Police, Assam and others (2009) 6 SCC 611 wherein it was held as under:

Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 326 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Court In The Case Of Secretary, State Of ... vs . Uma on 9 April, 2015

31. Identical issue has already been considered by the Constitution Bench in Uma Devi's case (supra) and it was negated by observing as under:

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 1 - Cited by 2142 - Full Document

National Buildings Construction ... vs S. Raghunathan & Ors., S. P. Singh & Ors on 28 August, 1998

Minister for the Civil Service, national Buildings Construction Corpn. v. S. Raghunathan, and Dr. Chanchal goyal v. State of Rajasthan. There is no case that any assurance was given by the government or the concerned department while making the appointment on daily wages that the status conferred on him will not be withdrawn until some rational reason comes into existence for withdrawing it. The very engagement was against the constitutional scheme. Though, the commissioner of the Commercial taxes Department sought to get the appointments made permanent, there is no case that at the time of appointment any promise was held out. No such promise could also have been held out in view of the circulars and directives issued by the Government after the dharwad decision. Though, there is a case that the State had made regularizations in the past of similarly situated employees, the fact remains that such regularizations were done only pursuant to judicial ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:39:56 :::HCHP 28 directions, either of the Administrative Tribunal or of the High Court and in some case by this court. Moreover, the invocation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot .

Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 435 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]

Constitution Article Cites 0 - Cited by 122106

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results