SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 574

S.P.BHARUCHA, K.S.PARIPOORNAN, K.RAMASWAMY
Y. H. Pawar – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

Appellant was appointed as a Class III employee on ad hoc basis on March 22, 1960, after his name was called from the Employment Exchange, in the Directorate of Public Health. In 1960, the Ministerial Recruitment Rules had come into force but the appellant was not regularized in the service. He came to be regularized on May 6, 1968 giving him seniority with effect from the date on which the selection was made. The appellant challenged the action in O.A. No.1007/93 in the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal which by the impugned order dated April 30,1993 dismissed the application. Thus this appeal by special leave.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that no statutory rules were in existence when he was appointed. Government issued orders that if the appointments were made by the Government or with the sanction of the Government the appointments would be regular appointments. Therefore, he must be deemed to have been appointed on regular basis with effect from the initial date of appointment. His seniority has thus to be reckoned from that date. It is contended, on the other hand, by learned c








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top