Back
BIREN VAISHNAV, PRANAV TRIVEDI
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
MUKUNDPRASAD CHANDUBHAI VALAND – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
BIREN VAISHNAV, J.
1. Letters Patent Appeals No. 481, 478, 479 of 1995 have been filed by the State challenging the oral judgment dated 07/08.03.1995 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the petitions filed by the original petitioners. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1070 of 2011 has also been filed by the State challenging the oral order dated 09.03.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge who allowed the petition of the original petitioner in terms of the oral order dated 07/08.03.1995 which are a subject-matter of challenge in the other appeals. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1082 of 2001 has been filed by the original petitioner challenging the order dated 24.02.1994 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition in absence of the advocate and on merits.
2. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, they are taken up together and decided by this common judgment.
3. The original petitioners before the learned Single Judge were engaged as Clerks to carry out liquidation proceedings of the respective societies in question. It was the case of the petitioners before the learned Single Judge that the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies appointed Co-op
The court established that staff appointed by liquidators in liquidation proceedings are not government employees and do not have rights to civil service benefits.
Contractual employees appointed for specific projects do not have a right to regularization or absorption in permanent positions, as per established Supreme Court precedents.
Employees of cooperative societies cannot be classified as Railway servants, as they operate under the cooperative law without Railway administrative control, thus not entitled to benefits reserved f....
Candidates in Ranked Lists retain rights for appointments post-amalgamation of District Banks, and authorities must act fairly by assessing existing vacancies and complying with statutory recruitment....
The principle of regularization of services and grant of regular pay-scale as per relevant government resolutions, and the prohibition of discriminatory treatment in public employment.
Regularisation – No such direction can be issued by High Court for absorption/regularisation of employees who were appointed in a temporary unit which was created for a particular project and that to....
Termination of employment without proper procedure violates natural justice; appointments not void ab initio if made with adherence to rules.
Employees in similar conditions cannot be treated differently; the arbitrary rejection of regularization applications violates the principle of equality.
Appointments not being sponsored by the employment exchange, as prescribed under Rule 149(2) of the Rules, would only make the appointments irregular and not illegal.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
