Death in Harness - The Legal Chamber

Can’t Terminate Compassionate Appointment for Failing Exam? Supreme Court Orders Lower Post Instead

18Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Can’t Terminate Compassionate Appointment for Failing Exam? Supreme Court Orders Lower Post Instead

The Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment schemes must be interpreted liberally to fulfill their humanitarian purpose, and procedural rigidity cannot override welfare objectives. It distinguished compassionate appointment from direct recruitment, ruling that reallocating a candidate to a lower post without essential qualifications does not violate equality clauses if it preserves the scheme's beneficial character. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, Harpal Singh, is the son of a deceased government employee who died in harness on February 28, 2019. Pursuant to the Madhya Pradesh compassionate appointment policy, he was appointed to the post of Assistant Grade-III on September 11, 2020. His appointment order contained a specific condition, derived from Clause 6.5 of the governi...

Supreme Court Rules No Compassionate Job if Retiral Benefits Accepted

The Supreme Court ruled that for a missing person, the date of civil death is legally presumed to be after seven years from disappearance, not the date they went missing, as per Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A court decree declaring death merely recognizes this presumption without fixing an earlier date. This legal presumption is central to claims dependent on establishing the date of death. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a claim for compassionate appointment by Shubham, the son of Gulab Mahagu Bawankule, an employee of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. Gulab went missing on September 1, 2012. During the period of his disappearance, he was treated as being in continuous service and was duly retired on January 31, 2015. His family received all retiral ben...

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Says Natural Justice Violated in Teacher Termination Case

The Supreme Court held that Rule 21 of the Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012, applies only to the preparation of a merit list and not to determining eligibility. The termination orders were quashed for violating principles of natural justice, as the appellants were not given notice regarding the exclusion of vocational subject marks. Facts Of The Case: The State of Jharkhand advertised posts for Intermediate Trained Teachers in 2015. The appellants—Ravi Oraon, Premial Hembrom, and Surendra Munda—successfully applied, were selected, and commenced their duties in December 2015. In September 2016, they were issued show cause notices alleging they did not meet the minimum eligibility criterion of 45% marks in their intermediate examination and questioning the validity ...