Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus AJAY KUMAR

Decided
17 February 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 102 · 1997 INSC 146
Also cited as
  • (1997) 4 SCC 88 (17 citing judgments)
  • (1997) SCC(L&S) 902 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 3 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 102, margin F

This appeal by special leave arises from the Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court, made on November 9, 1995 in Special Appeal No. 302/95.

p. 102, margin F

The admitted position is that the respondent came to be appointed on daily wage basis on February 14, 1985 as Class IV employee, Nursing Orderiy, in the Medical College-by-the Medical Superintendent. When the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court for his regularisation, the learned single Judge pointed out that the respondent has not brought to the notice of the Court, any statutory rule under which the respondent could be regularised, ondne basis of the service rendered by him as a daily wage earned. Even the method of recruitment adopted by the Superintendent was not proper inasmuch as he ~id not call applications. The Division Bench reversed the decision of the learned single Judge and had given directions. It is now settled legal positi~n that there should exist a post and either administrative instructions or statutory rules must be in operation to appoint a person to the post. Daily wage appointment will obviously be in relation to contingent establishment in which there cannot exist any post and it continues so long as the work exists. Under ·these circumstances, the Division bench was clearly in error in directing the appellant to regularise the service of the respondent to the post as and when the vacancy arises and to continue him until then. The direction in the backdrop of the above facts is, obviously, illegal.

pp. 102–103, margin G

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the learned single Judge stands upheld and that of the Division Bench stands set aside. No costs. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 103, margin C