Tag: Continuity of Service

Right to Education Act Upheld: Supreme Court Reinstates Teachers Who Qualified TET Later
17Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Right to Education Act Upheld: Supreme Court Reinstates Teachers Who Qualified TET Later

The Supreme Court held that teachers appointed before 31st March 2015 were granted a grace period until 31st March 2019 to acquire the mandatory Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualification under the amended RTE Act. Since the appellants had cleared TET well before this deadline, their subsequent termination solely for lacking the certificate at the initial appointment was illegal and set aside. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns the appellants, Uma Kant and another, who were appointed as Assistant Teachers at Jwala Prasad Tiwari Junior High School, Kanpur, in March 2012. Their appointments were made pursuant to an advertisement from July 2011. At the time of their appointment, the mandatory Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualification, introduced by a National Counci...
Read More
Wrong Rules, Right Candidate: Supreme Court Reinstates Teacher, Secures Job for Rival Too
21Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Wrong Rules, Right Candidate: Supreme Court Reinstates Teacher, Secures Job for Rival Too

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that the statutory rules applicable at the time of an advertisement govern the selection process. The Supreme Court held that applying a different set of service rules, which were not referenced in the advertisement, to invalidate a duly made appointment to an aided educational institution is illegal. The Court emphasized that the legality of an appointment must be tested against the rules that initiated the selection. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a 2006 advertisement issued by an aided college to fill a Lecturer post in History, governed by the Assam Government Aided Junior College Management Rules, 2001, which prescribed no age limit. The appellant, Jyotsna Devi, was selected as the most meritorious candidate. Although she was overag...
Read More
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
Doctrine of Severability: Supreme Court Says Don’t Punish the Innocent for Administrative Lapses
20Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Doctrine of Severability: Supreme Court Says Don’t Punish the Innocent for Administrative Lapses

The Supreme Court distinguished between irregular and illegal appointments, holding that procedural lapses not attributable to the appointees do not render appointments void if made against sanctioned posts by competent authority. The doctrine of severability applies to protect valid appointments from en masse cancellation, ensuring compliance with Articles 14 and 16. Natural justice mandates individual scrutiny before termination. Facts Of The Case: The appellants were initially appointed to Class-IV posts in the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB) between 2004–2006. Subsequently, they applied for and were selected for Class-III posts (Routine Clerk and Lower Division Assistant) through an internal recruitment process in 2009, pursuant to a standing order. Their appointments were f...
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