Page 51 - test_constitution 100

ART. 16 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 51
Aeronautics Limited v Smt. A. Radhika Thirumalai, AIR 1997 SC 123 : (1996)6 SCC 394).
Adoption deed was not proved. Claimant adopted son was not given compassionate appointment. (Chairman, Bihar Rajya Vidyut Board v Chhathu Ram, 1999 AIR SCW 4874 : (1999)5 SCC 673).
Appointment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Reservation for women candidates without consultation with High Court set aside. However, the Supreme Court directed that appointments given to women candidates shall not be disturbed. (Manjula Sircar v Harendra Bahadur Singh, AIR 2007 SC 3211 : (2007)7 SCC 488).
Discrimination on the ground of ‘sex’ under Articles 15 and 16, includes discrimination on the ground of gender identity. The expression ‘sex’ used in Articles 15 and 16 is not just limited to biological sex of male or female, but intended to include people who consider themselves to be neither male or female. (National Legal Services Authority v Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 1863 : (2014)5 SCC 438).
Seniority - Date of confirmation in service is the relevant date and determinative factor for assigning seniority. (M.S. Sandhu v State of Punjab, AIR 2014 SC 2394 : 2014(6) SCC 514).
Appointment on daily wage basis is not appointment according to Rules. (State of U.P. v Suresh Kumar, AIR 1996 SC 1565 : (1996)7 SCC 562 : 1996 AIR SCW 1796).
It is a settled principle of law that continuance in service for a long period on part time or temporary basis confers no right to seek regularisation in service. (Secretary to Government Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Secretariat and Another v A. Singamuthu, AIR 2017 SC 1304).
Only full time daily wagers who had completed 10 years of continuous service were held entitled to regularization. Part time employees were not entitled to regularization. (Secretary to Government Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Secretariat and Another v A. Singamuthu, AIR 2017 SC 1304).
Regularization - Appointments made de hors the rules are void, cannot be regularised. (Mahendra L. Jain v Indore Development Authority, AIR 2005 SC 1252 : (2005)1 SCC 639).
Daily wagers/contract workers - Employees who had put in ten years of service on the date of promulgation of Regularization Rules were held entitled to be regularized. (Narendra Kumar Tiwari v State of Jharkhand, AIR 2018 SC 3589).
All 955 employees of Contract Labourer’s Society though working in the establishment of Food Corporation of India (FCI) were paid wages directly by FCI for work (perennial in nature) were held entitled to regularization of their services. (Food Corporation of India v Gen. Secy. FCI India Employees Union, AIR 2018 SC 3902).
Petitioner appointed as Technical Assistant (ENT) in AIMS on contract basis, held not entitled to regularisation of services. (Yogesh Mahajan v Professor R.C. Deka, Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, AIR 2018 SC 757).
A KLJ PUBLICATION