KENDRIYA VIDHYALAYA SANGATHAN Vs. AJAY KUMAR DAS
LAWS(SC)-2002-4-115
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
April 29,2002
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN
Appellant
VERSUS
AJAY KUMAR DAS
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
MTR. MEHMOODA VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2022-12-8] [REFERRED TO]JAWAHARLAL CHANDRAKAR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2011-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
SAMDARIYA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-10-177] [REFERRED TO]
SHER MOHD. KHAN VS. MADAN LAL AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2011-8-79] [REFERRED TO]
LAL BAHADUR CHHETRI VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2003-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAGHUWAR PAL SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2018-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
GIRIJA PATEL VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2017-7-93] [REFERRED TO]
INSTITUTE OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR & ALLIED SCIENCES VS. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-3-391] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED VS. CHANDULAL SHANKERLAL VIRAMGAMI AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2016-1-179] [REFERRED TO]
NANURAM YADAV VS. REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES [LAWS(MPH)-2006-4-131] [REFERRED TO]
ISABELLA KYRSIAN VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS. [LAWS(MEGH)-2015-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-3-208] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR GAUR VS. STATE OF U.P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-2-256] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MANIPUR VS. Y TOKEN SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2007-2-138] [REFERRED TO]
ARAKHITA PRADHAN VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2017-5-117] [REFERRED TO]
O S SIDDAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS [LAWS(KAR)-2013-10-408] [REFERRED]
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. VS. DURVIJAY SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-267] [REFERRED TO]
SACHCHIDA NAND CHATURVEDI VS. STATE OF U P THRU PRINCIPLE SECY & ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-109] [REFERRED TO]
JAGAT SINGH VS. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION [LAWS(ALL)-2006-8-150] [REFERRED TO]
JAGJIT SINGH AND ORS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS [LAWS(P&H)-2007-10-162] [REFERRED]
T VIJENDRADAS VS. M SUBRAMANIAN [LAWS(SC)-2007-10-32] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMAR VS. PRINCIPAL JANTA INTER COLLEGE [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-286] [REFERRED TO]
LAL SINGH & OTHERS VS. DIRECTOR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-9-108] [REFERRED TO]
SUNITA RANI VS. CHAIRMAN GREATER N O I D A [LAWS(ALL)-2007-7-173] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNA LAL YADAV VS. HARI SINGH GOUR [LAWS(MPH)-2006-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. YOGENDRA KUMAR AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-336] [REFERRED]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-1-86] [DISTINGUISHED]
PADI BABY VS. NABAM PARI [LAWS(GAU)-2020-3-160] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. JOSEPH P CHERIAN [LAWS(SC)-2005-9-92] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT BURAGOHAIN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2021-11-62] [REFERRED TO]
ATUL KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-2-551] [REFERRED TO]
R R SHAH VS. VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2002-10-204] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH SINGH VS. VIDYADHIRAJ PANDEY [LAWS(ALL)-2006-7-204] [REFFERED TO]
MOTIRAM MANDHYANI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2003-3-85] [REFERRED TO]
GANPATBHAI MAHIJIBHAI SOLANKI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2008-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Rajendra Babu, J. -
(1.)Leave granted in all the SLPs.
(2.)The services of one Dr. K. C. Rakesh, Assistant Commissioner of the appellants' Regional Office in Guwahati stood terminated by an order made on December 11, 1997.
(3.)An advertisement had been issued on 26-10-1996 for filling up 12 posts of LDCs. Certain tests were held on different dates and letters of appointment were issued on 13/15 December, 1997 by the said Dr. K. C. Rakesh to the respondents and they were duly appointed. On the order terminating the services of the said Dr. K. C. Rakesh, a writ petition was filed before the High Court of Delhi which came to be ultimately dismissed. An interim order had been made in the said writ petition and the same was vacated by the Delhi High Court by an order made on 4-2-1998. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows :
". . . .taking advantage of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner has issued various orders. Whatever orders passed by the petitioner after the termination order issued by the respondents will be treated as null and void and they will have absolutely no legal effect. The respondent will act as if there are not such orders passed by the petitioner after the termination order was passed."
(2.)The services of one Dr. K. C. Rakesh, Assistant Commissioner of the appellants' Regional Office in Guwahati stood terminated by an order made on December 11, 1997.
(3.)An advertisement had been issued on 26-10-1996 for filling up 12 posts of LDCs. Certain tests were held on different dates and letters of appointment were issued on 13/15 December, 1997 by the said Dr. K. C. Rakesh to the respondents and they were duly appointed. On the order terminating the services of the said Dr. K. C. Rakesh, a writ petition was filed before the High Court of Delhi which came to be ultimately dismissed. An interim order had been made in the said writ petition and the same was vacated by the Delhi High Court by an order made on 4-2-1998. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows :
". . . .taking advantage of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner has issued various orders. Whatever orders passed by the petitioner after the termination order issued by the respondents will be treated as null and void and they will have absolutely no legal effect. The respondent will act as if there are not such orders passed by the petitioner after the termination order was passed."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.