Tag: Administrative Law

State Cannot Penalize Employee for Its Own Error, Rules Supreme Court
7Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

State Cannot Penalize Employee for Its Own Error, Rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to grant relief, ruling that an appellant, though initially ineligible, cannot be penalized for the state authorities' error in selecting and appointing him. The court reinstated the appellant with continuity of service but denied back wages, clarifying the decision was based on the case's peculiar facts and would not set a precedent. Facts Of The Case: The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission advertised for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT), reserving 25% of vacancies for teachers from Government Elementary Schools with five years of experience. The appellant, a teacher at a fully government-aided minority school, applied under this quota. His application was processed by the Commission, which found hi...
Read More
SBI Wins Case: Supreme Court Rules OTS Application Invalid Without Upfront Payment
5Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

SBI Wins Case: Supreme Court Rules OTS Application Invalid Without Upfront Payment

The Supreme Court held that a borrower's failure to comply with the mandatory upfront payment requirement under a One-Time Settlement (OTS) scheme renders the application incomplete and not entitled to processing. The Court further ruled that, in judicial review, an administrative order of rejection can be upheld on an alternative legal ground apparent from the record, provided the affected party is granted a fair opportunity to respond. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, Tanya Energy Enterprises, availed credit facilities from the State Bank of India (SBI) by mortgaging seven properties but subsequently defaulted on its repayment obligations. After its account was classified as a non-performing asset, SBI initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. A prior One-Time Settlement...
Read More
Supreme Court on Legal Metrology: No Search or Seizure Without “Reasons to Believe” & Independent Witnesses
2Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court on Legal Metrology: No Search or Seizure Without “Reasons to Believe” & Independent Witnesses

The Supreme Court held that inspection, search, and seizure under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, must comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards of the Cr.P.C., including recording "reasons to believe" and the presence of independent witnesses under Section 100(4). Non-compliance with these statutory procedures vitiates the entire action, rendering it illegal and unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, ITC Limited, maintained a warehouse for its 'Classmate' brand stationery. On July 2, 2020, Legal Metrology officers inspected these premises without a warrant and seized 7600 packages of exercise books for an alleged violation of Rule 24 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. The appellant challenged this action before the Karnataka High Cour...
Read More
Coal India’s 20% Price Hike for Select Industries Upheld by Supreme Court
1Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Coal India’s 20% Price Hike for Select Industries Upheld by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Coal India's Interim Pricing Policy, ruling that the 20% price increase for the non-core sector was a valid economic policy decision. The Court affirmed that such price fixation, based on reasonable classification and to subserve the common good, does not violate Article 14, and set aside the refund directed by the High Court. Facts Of The Case: Following the Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Ashoka Smokeless that struck down the e-auction system for coal sales, Coal India Limited (CIL) introduced an Interim Coal Policy on December 15, 2006. This policy increased the price of coal by 20% over the pre-e-auction notified price specifically for linked consumers in the non-core sector, such as manufacturers of smokeless fuel. An associat...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Reserved Candidates Who Use Age Relaxation Can’t Switch to General Category
27Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Reserved Candidates Who Use Age Relaxation Can’t Switch to General Category

The Supreme Court held that reserved category candidates who avail age relaxation are barred from migrating to unreserved vacancies if the governing recruitment rules expressly prohibit it. The Court distinguished earlier precedents, ruling that such an embargo does not violate equality, as the right to be considered for general category posts depends on the specific rules of the recruitment process in question. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a recruitment drive for Constable (GD) in various Central Armed Police Forces. The employment notification prescribed an age limit of 18-23 years, with a 3-year relaxation for OBC candidates. The respondents, OBC candidates, availed this age relaxation to participate in the selection process. However, they were not selected in the OBC c...
Read More
Training is a Must: Supreme Court Judgment on Railway Recruitment and Service Confirmation
16Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Training is a Must: Supreme Court Judgment on Railway Recruitment and Service Confirmation

The Supreme Court held that successful completion of prescribed training, including passing the requisite written test, is a mandatory condition precedent for confirmation in service for direct recruits to Group 'C' non-gazetted railway posts. Failure to clear this training examination validly entitles the employer to terminate services, as it is a fundamental term of recruitment governed by the Master Circular. Facts Of The Case: The case involved Alok Kumar, who was provisionally appointed as a Senior Section Engineer (Trainee) in the Railways after clearing a recruitment examination. His appointment was conditional on the successful completion of a 52-week training program. After 46 weeks of field training, he was sent, along with other trainees, to a three-week General and Subsidiary...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies: Reserved Candidates Availing Age, Physical Relaxations Can’t Migrate to General Quota
16Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Reserved Candidates Availing Age, Physical Relaxations Can’t Migrate to General Quota

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that reserved category candidates availing relaxations in age or physical standards are barred from migrating to unreserved vacancies if the governing recruitment rules impose such an embargo. Conversely, relaxations in physical standards based on gender or ethnicity, absent a specific rule, do not automatically preclude such migration. The applicability depends on the explicit provisions of the relevant recruitment rules or office memoranda. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a recruitment drive initiated by the Railway Protection Force (RPF) in 2013 to fill various ancillary posts. The employment notification provided age and physical measurement relaxations for candidates from SC/ST and OBC categories. A key issue arose regarding candidat...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Tender Conditions Must Be Clear, Can’t Reject Bids on Unstated Requirements
16Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Tender Conditions Must Be Clear, Can’t Reject Bids on Unstated Requirements

The Supreme Court ruled that tender conditions must be explicit and unambiguous. A bidder cannot be disqualified for non-submission of a document not expressly mandated by the tender. The tendering authority must act fairly and cannot impose hidden requirements, especially when a submitted certificate adequately demonstrates compliance with the stated criteria. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a tender issued by Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. (MPPGCL) for coal beneficiation work. Maha Mineral, the appellant, submitted its bid relying on its past experience as a 45% partner in a Joint Venture (JV) named Hind Maha Mineral LLP. To prove this, it submitted a work execution certificate from the Maharashtra State Mining Corporation (MSMC), which explicitly stated its 45% share an...
Read More
Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT Order, Rules Tribunal Can’t Outsource Its Decision-Making to Committees
6Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT Order, Rules Tribunal Can’t Outsource Its Decision-Making to Committees

This Supreme Court judgment underscores that the National Green Tribunal must adhere to statutory procedures and principles of natural justice when passing adverse orders. The Supreme Court set aside the NGT's orders, holding that imposing environmental compensation without making the appellant a party, providing a hearing, or following the mandatory sampling process under the Water Act, 1974, renders the decision illegal and void. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a complaint filed before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) alleging that M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. was discharging untreated effluent from its Muzaffarnagar sugar mill, contaminating the local groundwater. The NGT constituted a Joint Committee to inspect the unit. Based on the Committee's reports, w...
Read More
No Relief for Constable: Supreme Court Reinstates Dismissal Over Unauthorized Absences
1Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Relief for Constable: Supreme Court Reinstates Dismissal Over Unauthorized Absences

The Supreme Court ruled that while it is desirable to inform an employee if past misconduct will be considered for punishment, it is not mandatory when the current charge itself constitutes a "gravest act of misconduct." In such cases, referring to past conduct merely to add weight to the decision does not vitiate the dismissal order, especially within a disciplined force where habitual absenteeism is a serious violation. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, Ex. Constable Satpal Singh, was appointed in the Punjab Armed Forces in 1989 and later transferred to the Commando Battalion. The immediate trigger for the case was his unauthorized absence from April 4, 1994, to May 12, 1994 (37 days), after he overstayed a one-day casual leave. A departmental enquiry was initiated for this absence, w...
Read More