WASIM BEG

VS

STATE OF UP 1998 (78) FLR 910 SC-DB

CAN A PROBATIONER CLAIM PERMANENT STATUS AFTER EXPIRY OF PROBATION PERIOD ?

A PROBATIONER WOULD CONTINUE TO BE A PROBATIONER UNLESS THE RULES PRESCRIBE A MAXIMUM PERIOD OF PROBATION AND THAT PERIOD IS COMPLETED

SURINDER SINGH

VS

STATE OF PUNJAB [1998 ILLN-86 SC-DB]

CAN A WAIT LISTED CANDIDATE INSIST ON HIS APPOINTMENT AFTER ALL THE NOTIFIED POSTS HAVE BEEN FILLED ? CAN MORE POSTS THAN ADVERTISED BE FILLED ?

A WAIT LIST CANNOT BE USED AS  A PERENNIAL SOURCE OF RECRUITMENT OR FOR FILLING POSTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ADVERTISED. WAITING LIST IS RELEVANT ONLY WHEN ANY OF THE CANDIDATES SELECTED AGAINST THE FIXED NUMBER OF ADVERTISED POST HAS NOT JOINED. IT CAN NOT BE USED FOR FILLING NEW VACANCIES WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN NOTIFIED.

FILLING OF MORE POSTS THAN THE NUMBER ADVERTISED IS IRREGULAR.

UNION OF INDIA

VS

SHAMMI BHAN 1998 LLR 385 SC-DB

IN ALMOST ALL APPOINT-MENT LETTERS THERE IS A CLAUSE STIPULATING THAT THE SERVICE OF AN EMPLOYEE CAN BE TERMI-NATED BY GIVING A SPECIFIC NOTICE (ONE MONTH/3 MONTHS ETC.) WILL A SIMPLE DISCHARGE USING THIS CLAUSE BE A VALID/LEGAL TERMINATION ?

after the i.d. act amendment to the defin-ition of “retrench-ment [2(00)] in 1984. a simple discharge would be illegal in case of any “workman”. termination would be legal only if the principles of natural justice are complied with.

[in the case of employees who fall outside the scope of the i.d. act it would be opposed to the public policy of the land and would therefore be violative of section 23 of the indian contract act. 1872 and be accordingly BE invalid]