Source: http://aupotripod.blogspot.com/2011/03/fraud-appointments-judgements.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 05:19:47+00:00

Document:
2006, 3753 of 2006, 3754 of 2006 and 3755 of 2006.
Development Horticulture Employees’ Union v. Delhi Administration [(1992) 4 SCC 99].
unemployed persons of their right to be considered for appointment to public posts/offices.
IV and other categories constitute about 41%.
salaries on time and eventually they will not be getting their full salary also.
and the functions of Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, District SelectionCommittees and other Selection Committees constituted by the Government.
any class, category or grade as a daily wage employee is hereby prohibited.
accordance with clauses (a) and (b) is permissible.
Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
termination simpliciter, not amounting to any punishment.
back door entrants became apprehensive of termination of their services in terms of Section 7.
evinced from the fact that by taking shelter of the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v.
for a minimum period of 5 years and were continuing on 25.11.1993. The relevant portions of G.O.
appointed for a specific work have been continued even after their need ceased.
with utmost strictness and to punish those who are guilty of violating the law.
The above Act came into force with effect from 25.11.1993.
violated the instructions issued by Government and appointed several individuals.
force as on the date from which his/her services have to be regularised.
3) The rule of reservation wherever applicable will be followed and back-log will be setoff against future vacancies.
4) Sponsoring of candidates from Employment Exchange is relaxed.
Pradesh Public Service Commission / District Selection Committee.
as on the date from which his or her services have to be regularised.
5. The sponsoring of candidate from Employment Exchange is relaxed.
7. The regularization of services of full-time employee already made in terms of G.O.Ms.
of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) (Amendment) Act, 1998.
Pattern and Pay Structure) (Second Amendment) Act, 1998.
October, 1996 and the remaining provisions shall come into force at once.
Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) (Amendment) Act, 1998.
by the amendments challenged the same in a batch of writ petitions filed before the High Court.
date of completion of 5 years service.
reason thereof the status of employee can be changed.
“It may seem unjust and oppressive, yet be free from judicial interference.
treasuries to honour such bills.
would be imposed, as regards grant of regularisation will be effective from that date.
regularisation. Learned counsel emphasized that the interpretation placed by this Court on G.O.
dated 22.4.1994 is final and the same could not have been undone by amending the 1994 Act.
No.27 of 1998 was not enforced retrospectively.
meaning something, Parliament does not legislate where no legislation is called for.
classification made by such Act.
made against the sanctioned posts only on the recommendations of the specified recruiting agencies.
establishment relating to a public service without the previous sanction of the competent authority.
the committee was clothed with the powers of civil court in relation to certain specified matters.
Section 14 postulates imposition of penalty for abatement of any offence punishable under the Act.
held that a policy of this nature cannot be interpreted as creating a right in favour of all casuallabourers to be regularized in service irrespective of the date of completion of the specified period.
“……..We do not think that clause 4 of the Scheme envisages it as an ongoing scheme.
the State Government to invest money for an avoidable exercise.
Section 2(ii) of the 1994 Act) to be regularised in service de-hors the date of enforcement of the Act.
there will be wholesale regularisation of daily wagers, casual employees, work charge employees, etc.
September 15, 1982 as the relevant date. This notification/order does two things.
1982, and secondly, it provides for their regularisation subject to certain conditions.
deeming date or with effect from a particular date.
Court in a particular manner, has been considered in several cases. In Government of A.P. v. H.M.T.
squarely within the new definition contained in Section 2(15).
Legislature to enact laws is plenary. In United Provinces v. Atiqa Begum, Gwyer, C.J.
limitations aforesaid, an ancillary power to legislate on the particular subject.
of surcharge by issuing an ordinance. In Chakolas Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. vs. K.S.E.
validate the past transactions which were declared by the court to be unconstitutional.
properly removing the base on which the judgment is founded.
legislature. Therefore, they are not encroachment on judicial power.
legislation with a deeming date or with effect from a particular date………….
case show that in A.N. Sehgal v. Raje Ram Sheoran [1992 Supp (1) SCC 304] and S.L. Chopra v.
same were enacted with the sole object of nullifying the earlier judgments of this Court in A.N.
been established to have contravened any provisions of Part III of the Constitution.
Articles 245, 246 and 248 to alter the law as settled or declared by judicial decisions.
by changing the basis of the Act upon which that judgment was founded.
issued consequential directions for equation of posts, revision of pay scales and payment of salaries.
by artificially reverting to a situation which existed 17 years ago? No.
may not have completed 5 years continuous service on or before 25.11.1993.
employees who completed 5 years service after 25.11.1993 cannot claim regularisation.
claims etc. has become purely academic.
unless the fixation of date is found to be very wide off the reasonable mark.
at the time of the commencement of the Ordinance i.e. June 12, 1978 i.e.
filed by any such employee may have been dismissed by the Tribunal or High Court or this Court.
conditions enumerated in G.O.(P). No.112 dated 23.7.1997.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.