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

2003 Supreme(SC) 1026

SECRETARY, State of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
UMADEVI – Respondent


( 1 ) THIS bunch of appeals is against the judgments of the High Court of karnataka, in some of which the Court has directed regularisation of the ad hoc employees or their consideration for regularisation while in some other appeals the request for regularisation has been refused. It is indicated by the learned counsel for both sides that the number of employees involved would be in thousands, maybe 30,000 to 40,000, in different departments of the state Government. So far as the position of law relating to the regularisation of the ad hoc employees is concerned, it is submitted that there are conflicting views of this Court between the decisions of Benches consisting of two Judges and three Judges. In this connection reference has been made to two decisions of this Court rendered by three-Judge Benches, namely, ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar and State of Haryana v. Piara Singh. It is submitted that in both these decisions it has been held that regularisation is possible only against sanctioned or permanent vacancies. If such vacancies are not available or the candidates lack in eligibility or qualifications in any manner, then too it would not be possible to order for regularisa




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