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

2003 Supreme(Pat) 58

RAVI S.DHAVAN, RAJENDRA PRASAD
Upendra Kumar @ Upendra Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


Judgment

1. The appeal is barred by limitation notwithstanding the Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The manner in which the appointment of the petitioner was made justifies the order of termination. It is accepted by the petitioner that (a) appointment was not made in terms of the guidelines issued by the department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms as a public advertisement had not been issued, (b) the appointments were made without calling for any name from the employment exchange and (c) the appointments were not made from the District Standard Sub-Committee guideline prescribed by the education department of the State.

3. On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended on the writ petition that this circumstance may at best be treated as an irregularity and not an illegality. This seems to be a novel argument as these are the circumstances which go in the making of what is known in the State as Naukari scam.

4. The Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Judge on the writ petition.

5. Dismissed.

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