Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAVI SHANKER SINGH versus VICE CHANCELLOR, B.H.U. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ravi Shanker Singh v. Vice Chancellor, B.H.U. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 290 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 6133 (4 April 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

CJ's Court

Special Appeal No.290 (D) of 2007

Ravi Shanker Singh

Vs.

Vice Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi & Others

Counsel for the appellant: Mr. R.K. Nigam, Adv.

Counsel for the respondents: Mr. Pankaj Naqvi, Adv.

~~~~~

Hon'ble H.L. Gokhale, CJ.

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents-University.

2. The appeal seeks to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 29.11.2006, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking his regularisation in his post under the University-respondents with effect from 1.6.1992.

3. The appellant had been working under the University-respondents as a Semi Professional Assistant in the Library Department. He was working on contractual basis and the order of appointment clearly records that he was appointed on purely temporary basis, which will not entitle him to claim any future appointment. The petitioner was subsequently terminated in the year 1996. This termination led to the writ petition and the impugned order.

4. The learned Single Judge, who has dismissed the writ petition has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi and others, reported at (2006) 4 SCC 1, where the Apex Court has held that a contractual appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract and it is further clarified that merely because a temporary employee continued for a long time beyond the time of his initial appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed. Same is the position in the present case and, therefore, there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

5. The appeal is dismissed.

Dt/-4.4.2007

RKK/-     (Chief Justice)

(Ashok Bhushan, J.)


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.