https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412138 Where an ad hoc teacher was appointed by the prescribed appointing authority under the 1983 Service Rules, against a sanctioned post, and possessed the requisite qualifications, denial of regularization under the Regularization Rules, 2001 on the ground that the initial appointment was against a leave vacancy was held unsustainable. The SC held that the State could not invoke the "litigious appointment" principle from Umadevi to defeat regularization, nor could it reopen concluded findings by raising a fresh plea of prior termination that was not urged before the Single Judge and had attained finality; permitting such pleas would amount to abuse of process. The HC Division Bench judgment was set aside and the employee was directed to be regularized with all consequential benefits within three months. en-us Tue, 17 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Dec 2025 12:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412138 Where an ad hoc teacher was appointed by the prescribed appointing authority under the 1983 Service Rules, against a sanctioned post, and possessed the requisite qualifications, denial of regularization under the Regularization Rules, 2001 on the ground that the initial appointment was against a leave vacancy was held unsustainable. The SC held that the State could not invoke the "litigious appointment" principle from Umadevi to defeat regularization, nor could it reopen concluded findings by raising a fresh plea of prior termination that was not urged before the Single Judge and had attained finality; permitting such pleas would amount to abuse of process. The HC Division Bench judgment was set aside and the employee was directed to be regularized with all consequential benefits within three months. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 17 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412138