Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.21 seconds)
Dr. Nirendra Dev vs All India Council Of Technical ... on 12 January, 2010 cites

Union Public Service Commission vs Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela & Others on 2 February, 2006

19. Shri Ganguly, learned sr. advocate representing the applicants, however, for the proposition advanced by him on the basis of regulation 7 and in particular the words on regular basis, has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Union Public Service Commission v Girish Jayantilal Vaghela & Others [(2006) 2 SCC 482]. The facts of the case aforesaid reveal that respondent Girish Jayantilal Vaghela, was appointed as Drugs Inspector on 11.3.1996 on short term contract basis on a fixed salary for a period of six months, which was continued for over five years. Pursuant to an advertisement for making regular selection on the post of Drugs Inspector he applied, and inasmuch as, there was relaxation in upper age limit for those who were in government service, he sought such relaxation. When the same was not granted to him, he agitated the matter before the Tribunal at Bombay, which dismissed the Original Application filed by him. Aggrieved thus, he filed a writ petition before the High Court which was allowed. Inasmuch as, it is a government servant who was entitled to age relaxation, the point that came to be canvassed before the Apex Court was as to whether while holding the post on contract basis without any competition, he could be treated or termed as a government employee. While dealing with issue, it was observed that the main object of Article 16 of the Constitution is to create a constitutional right to equality of opportunity and employment in public offices, and the words employment or appointment would cover not merely the initial appointment, but also other attributes of service like promotion and age of superannuation etc. It was further observed that appointment to any post under the State can only be made after a proper advertisement has been made inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding of selection by a body of experts or a specially constituted committee whose members are fair and impartial, through a written examination or interview or some other rational criteria for judging the inter se merit of candidates who have applied in response to the advertisement made, and that regular appointment to a post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement in the prescribed manner, which may, in some cases, include inviting applications from the employment exchange where eligible candidates get their names registered. What is held by the Apex Court is that a person appointed on contract basis without any competition would not be termed or treated as a government employee and would not be entitled to relaxation in age. The decision of the High Court was set aside and the writ petition filed on behalf of respondent Girish Jayantilal Vaghela was dismissed. From the observations made by the Honble Supreme Court that unless a person is appointed through a regular procedure he cannot be termed as government employee, it cannot be spelled that a person appointed within the rules and through a competition would be a permanent employee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 498 - G P Mathur - Full Document
1   2 Next