Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.22 seconds)
State Of Kerala vs Ponnamma on 17 November, 2005 cites

K.P.Sobhana vs State Of Kerala

From the Reference Order itself, it is found that in respect of candidates, who were not appointed through Employment Exchanges, but through separate selection process and who were not governed by the second proviso to Rule 9(a)(v), the same Bench had directed the Government to consider claims of such personnel for regularisation, by exercising residuary powers under Rule 39 of the KS & SSR, taking notice of the circumstance that their regularisation was delayed in spite of Government decisions, for no fault of theirs. Although the decision in Sobhana's case (cited supra) stands overruled by the Writ Appeal judgment in W.A.No. 2237 of 2004 and connected cases, when the Bench categorically held that persons regularised after 1.10.1994 were disentitled to the benefit of Government Decision No. 2 under Rule 33 of Part I of the KSR, the further observation, according to the Government Pleader was unwarranted.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - K V Chandran - Full Document

Stanley vs The State Of Kerala

We find that the decision in Stanley v. State of Kerala, 2002 (2) KLT 431, as well as Samuel John v. State of Kerala, 2002 (1) KLT 303, also lay down the above proposition. Therefore, it could be well assumed that it was a case where there were no sustainable claims and the date of advice did not make any difference entitling them any mileage whatsoever. With great respect, we hold that the Division Bench has not laid down the correct law.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 5 - S S Satheesachandran - Full Document

Samuel John vs State Of Kerala on 30 May, 2005

We find that the decision in Stanley v. State of Kerala, 2002 (2) KLT 431, as well as Samuel John v. State of Kerala, 2002 (1) KLT 303, also lay down the above proposition. Therefore, it could be well assumed that it was a case where there were no sustainable claims and the date of advice did not make any difference entitling them any mileage whatsoever. With great respect, we hold that the Division Bench has not laid down the correct law.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - S Jagan - Full Document

Jacob Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 1994

18. The hardship by the introduction of a cut off date cannot be taken notice of, as the Government had been synchronizing the terms of the KSR and the KS & SSR on the subject. Although the counsel had adverted to the decision of this Court in Jose Jacob v. State of Kerala, 1998 (2) KLT 873, we feel that this might not be an authority which could be profitably applied to the facts which are agitated herein.
Kerala High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1