Article 14 Violation - The Legal Chamber

Arbitrary Recruitment? Supreme Court Slams Punjab for Ignoring UGC & PSC Norms

8Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Arbitrary Recruitment? Supreme Court Slams Punjab for Ignoring UGC & PSC Norms

The Supreme Court ruled that the Punjab government's recruitment of Assistant Professors and Librarians violated constitutional and statutory norms. The Court held that the State failed to consult the Punjab Public Service Commission as mandated under Article 320(3)(a) and disregarded UGC Regulations 2010, which were binding. The retrospective amendment to exclude these posts from the Commission’s purview was deemed illegal. The selection process, based solely on a written test without interviews or academic evaluation, was found arbitrary under Article 14. The Court quashed the appointments, directing fresh recruitment in compliance with UGC Regulations 2018. Facts Of The Case: In January 2021, the Punjab government sent requisitions to the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) to fil...

Govt Employee Loses Promotion Battle: Supreme Court Upholds Downgraded Designation After 40 Years

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding that the appellant (a 1976 appointee) was validly redesignated from Junior Field Officer (Group B) to Carpet Training Officer (Group C) in 1978, and subsequent regularization in 2006 as CTO didn't entitle him to Handicrafts Promotion Officer status or its promotion channel. The Court ruled that cadre classification and scheme-specific redesignation were within the government's administrative discretion, and the appellant's acceptance of earlier CAT orders (without challenging the CTO designation) precluded belated claims for HPO benefits under Article 14 Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Rampat Azad, was appointed as a Junior Field Officer (JFO - Group B) in 1976 at the Carpet Weaving Training Centre, Varanasi, under the All-India Handicr...

Supreme Court : Mandates Full Pension for ALL Retired High Court Judges

The Supreme Court mandated uniform pension for all retired High Court Judges under the principle of "One Rank One Pension" (OROP), irrespective of their tenure, source of appointment (Bar/District Judiciary), or status (Permanent/Additional Judge). It held that discrimination in pension violates Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The Court directed payment of full pension (₹13.5 lakh/₹15 lakh p.a.) under the High Court Judges Act, 1954, rejecting minimum service requirements. Service breaks and New Pension Scheme (NPS) participation were deemed irrelevant, with NPS contributions refunded to affected judges. Family pension/gratuity was extended to families of Additional Judges, and 10 years were added to service for gratuity calculations under Section 17A. Facts Of The Case: This ...