Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
The State Of Bihar And Ors. vs Dayanand Sinha And Ors. [Alongwith ... on 15 March, 2007 cites

State Of Mysore & Anr vs S. V. Narayanappa on 22 August, 1966

One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayaanappa , R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process Page 1247 must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 455 - J M Shelat - Full Document

R. N. Nanjundappa vs T. Thimmiah & Anr on 8 December, 1971

One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayaanappa , R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process Page 1247 must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 732 - A N Ray - Full Document

B. N. Nagarajan And Ors vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. Etc on 3 May, 1959

One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayaanappa , R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process Page 1247 must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 354 - Full Document

The State Of Bihar And Ors. Etc. Etc. vs Purendra Sulan Kit And Ors. Etc. Etc. on 26 June, 2006

It is in these facts, upon conensus, as well as, the subsequent decisions of this Court in other cases based on the decisions rendered in Uma Devi (3) case (supra), like in the The State of Bihar and Ors. v. Purnedra Sulan Kit 2006 (3) Patna Law Journal Reports 386 and The State of Bihar and Ors. v. Bipin Prasad Singh and Ors. analogous cases LPA No. 1211 of 2005 decided on 2.11.2006, we are inclined to issue the following directions to the State of Bihar in respect of the original writ petitioners in respect of whom the decision of the Learned Single Judge is challenged in these group of appeals:
Patna High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 285 - S K Singh - Full Document
1