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

2006 Supreme(P&H) 1982

M.M.KUMAR, M.M.S.BEDI
Sunita Rani – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent


Judgment

M. M. KUMAR, J.

1. It is admitted position that the petitioners were inducted in service as ANM under the Re-productive and Child Health Programme scheme on 19.4.2005. Their services have been terminated on 23.2.2006. Some of the persons who were working on the post of ANM filed C. W. P. No.9673 of 2004 and this Court had stayed the operation of the termination order qua those persons on 30.1.2006 (P-7 ). However, such like order can c. W. P. No.5339 of 2006 [1] no longer be passed because once the petitioners are employed on 89 days basis and their services have been terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract employment then according to the constitution Bench judgment of the HON BLE Supreme Court no mandamus can be issued by this Court for extending the period of employment. The aforementioned view has been taken by the HON BLE Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others V/s. Umadevi and others, JT 2006 (4) SC 420. Therefore, no illegality could be found in the impugned order. For the reason aforementioned, this petition fails and the same is 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