Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.28 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Madhyamik Siksha Parishad, U.P. vs Anil Kumar Mishra And Others Etc. on 19 August, 1992
In Madhyamik Shiksha
Parishad v. Anil Kumar Mishra it was held that the completion of 240 days'
work does not confer the right to regularisation under the Industrial
Disputes Act. It merely imposes certain obligations on the employer at the
time of termination of the services.
M.P. Housing Board & Anr vs Manoj Shrivastava on 24 February, 2006
8. As Article 14 is an integral part of our system, each and every State
action is to be tested on the touchstone of equality. Any appointment
made in violation of mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is
not only irregular but also illegal and cannot be sustained in view of the
judgments rendered by this Court in Delhi Development Horticulture
Employees' Union v. Delhi Admn., State of Haryana v. Piara Singh,
Prabhat Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P., J.A.S. Inter College v. State of
U.P., M.P. Housing Board v. Manoj Shrivastava, M.P. State Agro Industries
Development Corpn. Ltd. v. S.C. Pandey and State of M.P. v. Sandhya
Tomar.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
E. Ramakrishnan & Ors vs The State Of Kerala & Ors on 4 September, 1996
In the case of E.
Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala this Court held that there can be no
regularisation dehors the rules.
Kishore Bhadke vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 January, 2017
The same view was taken in Kishore (Dr.)
v. State of Maharashtra and Union of India v. Bishamber Dutt. The
direction issued by the Services Tribunal for regularising the services of
persons who had not been appointed on regular basis in accordance with
the rules was set aside although the petitioner had been working
regularly for a long time.
Union Of India & Ors vs Bishamber Dutt on 23 October, 1996
The same view was taken in Kishore (Dr.)
v. State of Maharashtra and Union of India v. Bishamber Dutt. The
direction issued by the Services Tribunal for regularising the services of
persons who had not been appointed on regular basis in accordance with
the rules was set aside although the petitioner had been working
regularly for a long time.
Sumant Singh Jamwal vs State Of J&K And Ors on 28 July, 2011
In Surinder Singh Jamwal (Dr.) v. State of J&K it was held that ad
hoc appointment does not give any right for regularisation as
regularisation is governed by the statutory rules."
State Of Orissa & Anr vs Mamata Mohanty on 9 February, 2011
In State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, it was observed as under: