Tag: Article 14

Supreme Court’s Balancing Act in Telangana Job Case :Legitimate Expectation vs. Employer’s Right
25Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Balancing Act in Telangana Job Case :Legitimate Expectation vs. Employer’s Right

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms that candidates in a select list possess no vested right to appointment. An employer's decision to cancel a recruitment process is valid if based on bona fide reasons like administrative changes (e.g., state bifurcation) and altered requirements. The Court's role is limited to examining the decision-making process, not substituting its own view on the sufficiency of accommodations like age relaxation offered to affected candidates. Facts Of The Case: The erstwhile Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh (AP-Transco) initiated a recruitment process in 2011-2012 for 339 Sub-Engineer posts across the composite state. This process was delayed due to litigation challenging the marks weightage given to in-service candidates. While the legal challe...
Read More
Supreme Court’s Mixed Verdict for a Forest Officer :Right Declared, But Promotion Delayed
24Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Mixed Verdict for a Forest Officer :Right Declared, But Promotion Delayed

The Supreme Court ruled that the term "State Forest Service" under the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966, refers to the service as a whole, not individual posts. The Court held that once a state service is approved, its substantively appointed gazetted officers, including Forest Range Officers, are eligible for consideration for promotion to the Indian Forest Service. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, P. Maruthi Prasada Rao, was appointed as a Forest Range Officer (FRO) in 2006. In 2021, he petitioned the authorities, arguing that FROs should be considered part of the "State Forest Service" and thus be eligible for promotion to the Indian Forest Service (IFoS) when sufficient numbers of senior officers like Deputy Conservators of Forests (DCFs) and Assistant Conserv...
Read More
Supreme Court Curbs “Prove Prejudice” Rule: A Landmark Win for Natural Justice
19Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Curbs “Prove Prejudice” Rule: A Landmark Win for Natural Justice

The Supreme Court ruled that violating mandatory procedural safeguards in disciplinary inquiries, like failing to question an employee on adverse evidence, inherently constitutes prejudice. Relying on undisclosed material, such as a vigilance report, to enhance punishment also violates natural justice. No independent proof of prejudice is required for such fundamental breaches. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, K. Prabhakar Hegde, was a senior officer and Zonal Head of Vijaya Bank (which later merged with Bank of Baroda). In 1999, he was served with notices alleging irregularities in sanctioning temporary overdrafts to various parties. Formal disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in 2001. An inquiry officer was appointed, who submitted a report holding the charges proved. N...
Read More
Beyond Impeachment: Supreme Court Validates Its Internal Mechanism for Judicial Misconduct
9Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Beyond Impeachment: Supreme Court Validates Its Internal Mechanism for Judicial Misconduct

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 'In-House Procedure' for investigating allegations of judicial misconduct. It ruled that the mechanism, which can recommend a judge's removal, is a valid exercise of the CJI's authority under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, and does not violate the constitutional scheme for impeachment. Facts Of The Case: In March 2025, a fire broke out in the store-room of a Delhi High Court judge's official bungalow while he was away. During efforts to douse the flames, officials discovered burnt currency notes on the premises. This discovery raised serious suspicions of misconduct, potentially violating the values outlined in the Restatement of Judicial Life. Consequently, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court sought an explanation from the ...
Read More
Employers Must Accommodate: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Medical Disability & Jobs
29Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Employers Must Accommodate: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Medical Disability & Jobs

This Supreme Court held that a binding Memorandum of Settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which specifically provided alternate employment for colour-blind drivers, created an enforceable statutory obligation on the employer. The subsequent settlement and internal circulars could not override this specific contractual right, and the Corporation's failure to explore redeployment violated principles of natural justice and statutory compliance. Facts Of The Case: The appellant was appointed as a driver by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) in 2014. During a subsequent periodic medical examination, he was found to be colour blind and declared medically unfit to continue in his role as a driver. Following this, the appellant sought alternate employment...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds National Fraternity: Teaching Experience Across India Counts
26Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds National Fraternity: Teaching Experience Across India Counts

The Supreme Court held that a government notification extending the retirement age must be interpreted purposively, and a condition requiring "10 years of teaching experience in any State-aided university" includes experience from universities outside the state. Excluding such experience was found to be an arbitrary and discriminatory classification violating the right to equality under Article 14. Facts Of The Case: The appellant was initially appointed as a teacher in a government college in Assam in 1991, where he served for 16 years. In 2007, he was selected for a non-teaching post at Burdwan University, West Bengal, based on his qualifications and experience, and was later promoted in 2012. In 2021, the State of West Bengal issued a notification increasing the retirement age from 60...
Read More
Big Win for Disabled Workers: Supreme Court Strikes Down Discriminatory GO on Seniority and Promotion
10Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Big Win for Disabled Workers: Supreme Court Strikes Down Discriminatory GO on Seniority and Promotion

The Supreme Court overturned the Kerala High Court's judgments, restoring previous orders that granted benefits of seniority, probation, and promotion to appellants with benchmark disabilities. The Court found the State Government's subsequent order, which sought to deny these benefits to those regularly appointed on supernumerary posts, to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court affirmed that once regular appointments were made, associated benefits could not be withdrawn. Facts Of The Case: The appellants are individuals with benchmark physical disabilities exceeding 40% who were temporarily engaged in various public institutions in Kerala under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, for periods not exceeding 179 days. ...
Read More