A.K.SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN
Gauhati High Court Through The Registrar General – Appellant
Versus
Goto Ete – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Sikri, J.
Leave granted.
2. Pursuant to the advertisement dated July 13, 2001 issued by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘writ petitioners’) were appointed as Additional Deputy Commissioners with the powers of Additional Sessions Judge, on contract basis, with the stipulation that their period of contract is up to March 31, 2005. They were to man the Fast Track Courts (for short, ‘FTCs’). This contract period was extended for a further period of five years, i.e. up to March 31, 2010. These respondents put their claims for regularisation to the said posts and to be allowed to work as Additional Sessions Judges, invoking the provisions of Rule 7 of the Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2006. There has been a protracted litigation in this behalf, as would be noticed hereinafter at the relevant stage. At this juncture, while narrating the background in which the matter has landed in this Court, we may only mention that request for appointment on regular basis was rejected by the High Court (the appellant herein) and services of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were dispensed with on January 07, 2013. This termination
Brij Mohan Lal (1) v. Union of India
Madhumita Das v. State of Orissa
Brij Mohan Lal (2) v. Union of India
Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior
Mahesh Chandra Verma v. State of Jharkhand
Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) through Lrs. v. Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi)
Ajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.