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

DR. KISHORE versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Decided
7 October 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 231 · 1996 INSC 1156
Also cited as
  • (1997) 3 SCC 209 (6 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.

The petitioner was appointed on temporary basis de hors the rules as Medical Officer in Class III post on February 28, 1990 for a period of three months and it was extended from time to time. Apprehending termination of his service, he filed Writ Petition No. 2661/90 in the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur. The High Court had transferred the matter to the Administrative Tribunal. In T.A. No. 3559/92, the Tribunal by order dated September 15, 1993 directed that the petitioner may be allowed to continue until the duly selected candidates by the Selection Board or Maharashtra Public Service Commission were available and appointed; his continuance in service was only on ad hoc basis without confirment of any right including the requirement of notice before terminating the service; at best, he would be entitled to be considered along with other candidates and as soon as the duly selected candidate is appointed, his service was liable to be terminated even without notice. By proceedings dated January 4, 1994 one Dr. S.S. Solanki, Medical Officer, Class III who was selected by the Public Service Commission was posted by transfer at his request in place of the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order of termination in OA No. 400/95 and the Tribunal in the impugned order dated April 12, 1996 dismissed the petition. Thus, these special leave petitions.

pp. 231–232, margin E

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since vacancies are existing the appointment of Dr. Solanki by transfer could not be used as a means to terminate the service of the petitioner. We fail to appreciate the contention. It is fairly agreed by the learned counsel that the petitioner has no right to the post and as soon as a duly selected candidate is posts in his place, he has to given to the duly selected candidate. But his contention is that since Dr. Solanki was selected earlier to the order passed by the Tribunal and had been appointed on his transfer, it cannot be used a means to terminate the services of the petitioner. His contention absolutely has no force. As. soon as the duly selected candidate is posted, whether directly by transfer, necessarily the petitioner has to give place to such a candidate. The petitions, therefore, do not merit interference.

p. 232, margin B

The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed. R.P. · Petitions dismissed.

p. 232, margin D