yogesh (will tell you later) 26 July 2008
ESTHERPRIYA (Practising Advocate) 26 July 2008
Your case is regarding the issue of service matters which are purely covered by the internal management and it is goverened by rules, bye laws and relevant act that governs the institution or organisation and the relevant government G.O. issued are also to be read along with it. These are to read to know whether the person who sped 10 years of time in the organisation can be regularised or else he is an outsider to the organisation has to be first revealed out. Then alone you can claim against the organisation and then you have a very good case.
Any way writ jurisdiction is availabe as the concerned person's right to livelihood and other aspects are hit by the organisation. But it is arguable matter and the grant of an order is purely discretionary and it vests with the court to decide in your favour. If can i will quote cases laws in this point at a later date as i am not aware now in this point
Rama chary Rachakonda (Secunderabad/Highcourt practice watsapp no.9989324294 ) 28 July 2008
He can approach High court & submit a writ under article 226.
Vikram Chandra (Advocate) 28 July 2008
I accept what padmapriya says in her advise and you have an option to file a writ under 226 as said by ramachary, as the institution is an autonomous one under Ministry. Further, as far as the pending employment issue is concerned, the individual cannot invoke 226 under only an apprehension. What I feel unless there is any action from the employer terminating the services of an individual which is prima-facie illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice then the writ remedy lies.
ARVIND KUMAR (LAWYER) 29 July 2008
The services of your client is in the nature of ad-hoc not in the nature contractual. so please go ahead with the termination rules and regulations under Govt. service. Before Termination the one months notice required, opportunity of hearing to defend should be given, otherwise principles natural justice violated. One thing more your client served upto about 10 years without any break this will be one of the important ground to challenge the termination order. some Judgment of apex court as well as High court are favouring your case. so try to approach High court and challenge termination order certainly your client will get relief.
you can search a reported Judgment in UPLBEc 1999 under the head of termination.
The appointment at the initial stage is objective not subjective after passing 10 years in service it can not be revoke without any rhyme and reason.
also search uplbec 2006. under head termination.
Please writ me detail regarding grounds of termination of your client. So that I help you.
Binod Kumar Mishra (Government Service) 11 September 2009
Dear Yogesh jee,
Arvind KUmar jee has rightly said. you may appraoch High Court at Judicature and you will get relief. since there is a ruling that an ad-hoc employee is required to terminate by the employer after a regular service of 90 days and if your employer want then again he may appoint you after a gap of one day after 90 days.
your case is very strong enough as your employer is a sister concern of a central government department. if you want any further help then please write to me at email@example.com with total details of your case, may be possible i will be of some help to you.
Vivek Nagrath (Income Tax Officer) 17 August 2012
In case of DPC for a particular Recruitment Year(RY) has taken place and the vacancies arising for that RY has been filled up and panel of officials accordingly so promoted have joined as a consequence to the said DPC. Subsequently the court orders to assign seniority to another official from the back date with consequential effect and the official due to the said refixation of seniority becomes eigible for promotion in the aforesaid RY. Now under the said circumsatnces since the promotions have been given effect to during the said RY itself then by this promotion from the aforesaid RY - Whether the vacancies for that RY will be taken to be incresed, due to the court order, to be adjusted in subsequent RYs, if it is so, is there any court ruling, or through a review DPC for that RY last person in the original panel will be taken out as excess and shifted to the next RY and so on and so forth.
This may be explained with the help of an example i.e. there are 20 vacancies available for promotion in a particular cadre in respect of a RY say 2003-04 vide a DPC conducted on say 21.07.2003 the said vacancies are filled and 20 officals are promoted to the higher post. Subsequently in the RY say 2006-07 there comes a court order vide which Mr. A , as directed by the Hon'ble Court, is to be assigned a seniority from the back date with all consequential benefits. As a consequence to the said order and so assigned seniority Mr. A also becomes eligible for promotion for and during the RY 2003-04. Now the question arises that when Mr. A is given promotion by a review DPC though held in 2006-07 but w.e.f. 21.07.2003 (RY 2003-04) the panel for promotion against the 20 vacancies now stands extended to 21so whether the said 20 vacancies, due to the implementation of the court order, shall be taken to be 21 and the said additional 1 vacancy will be adjusted during the DPC for the ensuing year i.e. 2007-08. Though it is the logical course and if it is so then is there any court decision on the issue or; by a review DPC last official in the original panel of RY 2003-04 wil be removed and placed in the panel for next RY 2004-05 and same treatment will be meted out to now last excess official in the panel for 2005-06 and so on and so forth.