Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
T.Kunju Krishnan vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 30 July, 2019
2. The Writ Court relied on the order passed in the W.P.No.4991 of
2015 in the case of T.Kunju Krishnan and others Vs. Government of Tamil
Nadu dated 30.07.2019. Relying on the said judgment, the benefit of
retrospective regularisation from the date of initial appointment was granted
by the Writ Court. Challenging the same, the present writ appeal is filed.
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Court In The Case Of Secretary, State Of ... vs . Uma on 9 April, 2015
8. The Constitution Bench in the case of Uma Devi in unequivocal
terms held in paragraph 54 that any judgments / decisions running counter to
the principles settled by the Constitution Bench in the Uma Devi's case,
denuded to loose its status as precedent. Therefore, based on any other
judgments, the regularisation or permanent absorption of illegal or irregular
or back door appointments cannot be regularised.
2Ec.To Govt.,School Education ... vs Thiru R.Govindaswamy & Ors on 21 February, 2014
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in subsequent judgment in the
case of Secretary to Government School Education Department, Chennai
Vs. R.Govindaswamy and Others reported in 2014 (4) SCC 769 reiterated
the principles by referring the case of State of Rajasthan and Others Vs.
Daya Lal and Others reported in (2011) 2 SCC 429 that the High Courts in
exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue
directions for regularization, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the
employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a
regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive
Page 6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2163 of 2021
process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in
Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not
issue a direction for regularisation of services of an employee, which would
be violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for
want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which
does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries,
appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of
ineligible candidates cannot be regularised.
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Daya Lal & Ors on 13 January, 2011
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in subsequent judgment in the
case of Secretary to Government School Education Department, Chennai
Vs. R.Govindaswamy and Others reported in 2014 (4) SCC 769 reiterated
the principles by referring the case of State of Rajasthan and Others Vs.
Daya Lal and Others reported in (2011) 2 SCC 429 that the High Courts in
exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue
directions for regularization, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the
employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a
regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive
Page 6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2163 of 2021
process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in
Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not
issue a direction for regularisation of services of an employee, which would
be violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for
want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which
does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries,
appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of
ineligible candidates cannot be regularised.
1