Supreme Court of India
SH. MAHESHWARI SENIOR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ANR. versus BHIKHA RAM SHARMA AND ORS.
- Decided
- 12 February 1996
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1996] 2 S.C.R. 466 · 1996 INSC 229
- Also cited as
- (1996) 8 SCC 22
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.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment 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 ..
p. 466, margin F
This appeal by special leave arises from the order· of the Rajasthan High Court made in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 492/95. The short question is: whether the respondent can be permitted to continue in a post that stands abolished? It is not in dispute that the respondent was appointed as Steno-Typist on ad hoc basis w.e.f. July 15, 1992. While he was continuing, the Management had passed. a Resolution on May 21, 1994 stating that there was no necessity to continue the ad hoc post of Stenotypist. Consequently," the post stood abolished. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed on May 31, 1994 terminating the service. When the appellants had proceeded to the Tribunal and then to the High Court, the High Court came to the conclusion that termination is not according to rules and directed to conduct an enquiry according to Rules and to take a decision. The approach adopted by the High Court is wholly erroneous. It is settled law that on abolition of the post, the existing holder of the post ceases to continue from the date of abolition of the post. Since the termination of the service of the respondent is only due to abolition of the post, the question of conducting the enquiry under Rules does not arise.
pp. 466–467, margin F
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.
p. 467, margin B