Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.38 seconds)
Sri Pramod Kumar S/O Dabaleshwar Ronand vs The Additional Chief Secretary on 11 March, 2024 cites

Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006

7. When we consider the prevailing scenario, it is painful to note that the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has not been properly understood and rather wrongly applied by various State Governments. We have called for the data in the instant case to ensure as to how many employees were working on contract basis or ad hoc basis or daily-wage basis in different State departments. We can take judicial notice that widely aforesaid practice is being continued. Though this Court has emphasised that incumbents should be appointed on regular basis as per rules but new devise of making appointment on contract basis has been adopted, employment is offered on daily-wage basis, etc. in exploitative forms.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 4959 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Pankaj Kumar vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh Education ... on 14 December, 2016

The writ petition i.e. CWP No. 3303 of 2012-A was filed in the year 2012 without even impleading the appointees as party respondents. In the writ petition, there was no rejoinder filed by the writ petitioners disputing the averments of the State as stated in the reply-affidavit. Having regard to the nature of such appointments, appointments made as per policies cannot be termed as illegal. Having regard to material placed before this Court and having regard to reasons recorded in the impugned order [Pankaj Kumar v. State of H.P., 2014 SCC OnLine HP 5944] by the High Court, we are of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment [Pankaj Kumar v. State of H.P., 2014 SCC OnLine HP 5944] of the High Court."
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Chander Mohan Negi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 17 April, 2020

So far as Primary Assistant Teachers Scheme of 2003, which was the subject-matter of letters patent appeal arising out of CWP No. 3303 of 2012-A filed by Chander Mohan Negi and others, is concerned, the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2813 of 2017 except Appellants 1, 2 and 4 have withdrawn [Chander Mohan Negi v. State of H.P., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 459] the appeal and Appellants 1 and 4 are already appointed as JBTs. Insofar as the only appellant viz. Appellant 2, Rajiv Chauhan is concerned, it is stated that he is qualified and there are vacant posts and he can be considered if he applies to any of the existing vacancies. So far as the Primary Assistant Teacher Scheme is concerned, same was notified as early as on 27-8-2003. As is evident from the Scheme itself, the object of the Scheme appears to be to compulsorily enrol children in schools for elementary and primary education in the remote areas to achieve the goals as set by the Government while enacting the Himachal Pradesh Compulsory Primary Education Act, 1997 with a view to achieve the target of 100% enrolment to children. As per the Scheme, the eligibility was 10+2 from a recognised Board/University and the candidates with higher qualifications were also eligible and candidates with professional qualifications were to be preferred. As per the regular Recruitment Rules the requisite qualification for the post of JBT Teacher during the relevant time was 10+2 with 50% marks and JBT certificate. As submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State that initially though 3500 odd Teachers were appointed, as of now there are only a total of 3294 Teachers working in this category and out of this about 1866 had the qualification of 10+2 with more than 50% marks at the relevant point of engagement. Out of the balance, 1015 had 10+2 with less than 50% marks, but they had higher qualification such as BA/MA/M Sc or B Ed, etc. 51 Further, it is also brought to our notice that out of all the candidates, 3294 candidates who are presently working have acquired the professional qualification of diploma in elementary education or have undergone Professional Development Programme for Elementary Teachers. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that when the appointees appointed under the scheme have completed more than almost 15 years of service now and also have acquired the professional qualifications, they cannot be denied regularisation at this point of time. As the appointments were made as per the schemes notified by the Government such appointments cannot be treated as illegal, if at all they can be considered irregular. When it is the plea of the State that in view of the hard topography/tribal areas in the State, large number of vacancies were there even in single teacher schools and to achieve the object of the Himachal Pradesh Primary Education Act, 1997 such steps were taken, there is no reason to disbelieve the same, more so, in absence of any affidavit by way of rejoinder by the writ petitioners before the High Court controverting the allegations in the reply filed on behalf of the State.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 64 - R S Reddy - Full Document
1   2 Next