Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The State Of Bihar And Ors. Etc. Etc. vs Purendra Sulan Kit And Ors. Etc. Etc. on 26 June, 2006
In view of the judgment of this Court in Umadevi (supra),
the Division Bench in State of Bihar v. Purendra Sulan Kit, reported in 2006 (3)
7
PLJR 386, directed the State Government to find out which of the affected employees
are entitled for regularisation. The direction of the Division Bench is as under:
Court In The Case Of Secretary, State Of ... vs . Uma on 9 April, 2015
"All the Letters Patent Appeals whether preferred by the
State or by affected employees and all the Writ Petitions
preferred by the affected employees are hereby disposed of
by this common judgment and order with a direction to the
authorities of the Health Department, Government of Bihar
to reconsider the cases of all the affected employees with a
view to find out on the basis of relevant facts and law as
settled by the Constitution Bench in the case of Secretary,
State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (supra) as to which of
such affected employees are fit for regularisation in terms of
that judgment, particularly in terms of paragraph 44 of the
judgment. Such exercise should be completed within a
period of six months from today. If for any good reason, the
time period is required to be extended then the respondent
State must file an application for that purpose and seek
extension from this Court. Till the process is completed, the
State of Bihar and its authorities shall maintain status quo in
respect of services of the affected employees as existing on
date. The status quo shall get revised by the orders that may
be passed by the authorities in respect of affected employees
as a result of the exercise to be undertaken by them and their
final decision in the light of this judgment and order."
State Of Orissa & Anr vs Mamata Mohanty on 9 February, 2011
In State of Orissa and Anr. v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436, this
Court has held that once an order of appointment itself had been bad at the time of
initial appointment, it cannot be sanctified at a later stage. It was held thus:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submitted
that the writ petitioners have the requisite qualification for being appointed to the post
in question. They have been appointed by the committee constituted and headed by
the Regional Deputy Director considering their past health service experience and
qualification and posted in different primary health centres and worked for the past 2
to 3 decades. Their appointment is fully protected by the judgment in Umadevi
(supra) and M.L. Kesari (supra). Therefore, they cannot be terminated from service at
this stage of their career, that too without holding any disciplinary enquiry against
them.
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Karnataka & Ors vs M.L. Kesari & Ors on 3 August, 2010
10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submitted
that the writ petitioners have the requisite qualification for being appointed to the post
in question. They have been appointed by the committee constituted and headed by
the Regional Deputy Director considering their past health service experience and
qualification and posted in different primary health centres and worked for the past 2
to 3 decades. Their appointment is fully protected by the judgment in Umadevi
(supra) and M.L. Kesari (supra). Therefore, they cannot be terminated from service at
this stage of their career, that too without holding any disciplinary enquiry against
them.
1