REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

P.Dhandayuthapani Appellant

V/S

STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

LORD MORRIS IN HERRINGTON VS. BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MYSORE VS. S V NARAYANAPPA [REFERRED TO]
TRIBHOVANDAS PURSHOTTAMDAS THAKKAR VS. RATILAL MOTILAL PATEL [REFERRED TO]
B N NAGARAJAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. GODFREY PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED :INDIA TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED :VAZIR SULTAN TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
D C WADHWA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
SUNDARJAS KANYALAL BHATIJA PRAHALAD HIRANAND ADVANI VS. COLLECTOR THANE MAHARASHTRA:COLLECTOR THANE MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SURINDERKUMAR [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
ASHWANI KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. DAYA LAL [REFERRED TO]
G.L. BATRA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
SANDHYA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The orders of rejection dated 19.5.2017, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioners, both for regularization and for permanent absorption in the sanctioned post in the time scale of pay, are under challenge in these writ petitions.

(2.) The claim of the writ petitioners were rejected on the ground that the writ petitioners were not appointed in accordance the Recruitment Rules in force as well as the fact that the writ petitioners were not appointed in the sanctioned posts.

(3.) Thus, the benefit of regularization cannot be granted to the writ petitioners as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2726-2729/2014 [SLP (Civil) No.5687 of 2014] dated 21.2.2014.

Click here to view full judgment.

P.DHANDAYUTHAPANI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address