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

2015 Supreme(SC) 684

T.S.THAKUR, R.BANUMATHI
SURENDRA KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Respondent


Judgment

R. Banumathi, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of a judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 29.10.2013 in Writ Petition No.65789 of 2011, in and by which, the High Court held that on the principles laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1, the appointments of the appellants were ex-facie illegal dehors Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and directed an inquiry regarding initial appointments.

3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellants were initially engaged on the post of Assistant Manager (Civil) by the respondent No.1–Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority on contractual basis for a period of 89 days. Admittedly, initial appointments of the appellants were not made against any sanctioned posts. However, their engagement continued from time to time, and the appellants have been continuously working on the said post. On 20.11.2002, the respondent authorities published an advertisement for engagement to the posts of Assistant Manager (Civil). The appellants and similarly situated persons who have been engaged on cont












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