Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.72 seconds)
Sh. Chandra Bose vs Hon???Ble Lt. Governor Nct Of Delhi And ... on 1 August, 2014 cites

5. The Issue Is Fully Covered By Two ... vs . Returning Officer, Namakkal ... on 28 March, 2011

4. Mr.Arjun Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in terms of Rule 12 read with Rule 13 of the Rules, the probation could not have been extended beyond 3 years. He would state that 3 years were completed on January 03, 2009 and on that date the petitioner deemed to have been confirmed. That apart it was his submission that even assuming a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on the date when other similarly placed officers have been appointed on substantive basis, the proceeding insofar as the petitioner was concerned should have been kept in sealed cover. That apart it was his case that the Inquiry Officer had submitted her report on January 07, 2010, wherein the charges against the petitioner could not be proved, the extension of probation vide order dated August 18, 2010 for a further period of one year was unjustified both on the ground that there cannot be extension beyond a period of 3 years and also there was no material with the Competent Authority to extend the probation as the petitioner stood exonerated. He would also state that the impugned order has been passed on May 24, 2012 that too after 9 months of completing the extended period of probation. He would further state, there was nothing adverse against the petitioner as no adverse ACRs were ever communicated and extending the probation or reverting the petitioner to his substantive grade was uncalled for. He would rely upon the judgments reported as AIR 1968 SC 210 State of Punjab vs. Dharam Singh, 129 (2006) DLT 737 Full Bench M.S.Rohilla vs. High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, 2013 (9) SCC 566 Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. and 1991 (4) SCC 109 Union of India & Ors. vs. K.V.Jankiraman W.P.(C) 1169/2013 Page 3 of 17 & Ors. in support of his contentions.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

State Of U.P. And Anr vs M. J. Siddiqui And Ors on 31 March, 1980

In State of U.P. and Another vs. Dr. M.J. Siddiqui and Others, it was held by the Supreme Court that even a substantive appointment could be made to a purely temporary vacancy. In the said case, the question for consideration before the Apex Court was whether the appellants were appointed purely on a temporary basis or in a substantive capacity though against temporary posts. The appellants in that case were appointed after reference to and on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. The Apex Court held that the appellants must be held to have been appointed in a substantive capacity to temporary post as reference to the Public Service W.P.(C) 1169/2013 Page 7 of 17 Commission and its recommendation was the due procedure which had been adopted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 58 - S M Ali - Full Document
1   2 Next