Employment Law - The Legal Chamber

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...

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...

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...

Supreme Court : Courts Can’t Reopen Departmental Inquiries; Role is to Check Procedure, Not Merits

23Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court : Courts Can’t Reopen Departmental Inquiries; Role is to Check Procedure, Not Merits

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms the limited scope of judicial review in departmental inquiries. The Supreme Court held that constitutional courts cannot act as appellate authorities to re-examine evidence. Interference is permissible only for procedural illegality, natural justice violations, or manifest perversity, not to reassess the merits of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, Ramadhar Sao, was employed as a messenger (a Class-IV employee) with the State Bank of India. In 2008, the Bank received complaints alleging he acted as a middleman, taking bribes from customers to facilitate the sanction and disbursement of loans. A chargesheet was issued against him in 2010, accusing him of misconduct for acting as a conduit fo...

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...

Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court

25Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court

The Supreme Court held that the authority's order, which rejected regularization claims on multiple fresh legal grounds—including qualifications and financial burden—constituted valid compliance with the High Court's direction. Since the rejection was not solely based on the prohibited "contract labour" ground, it could not be construed as wilful disobedience amounting to contempt of court. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from drivers engaged by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) seeking regularization of their services. Their initial representation was rejected by the NOIDA CEO in 2017 solely on the ground that they were intermittent workers hired through a contractor. This rejection was challenged and set aside by the Allahabad High Court in February 2020, wh...

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Shut Business, Orders ₹15 Crore Compensation for Workers

14Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Shut Business, Orders ₹15 Crore Compensation for Workers

This judgment primarily interprets Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding deemed closure. The Court examined if an application for closure was complete and if the State's communication constituted a valid refusal within the statutory 60-day period for deemed permission. It also considered the "appropriate Government's" role and Article 19(1)(g) (freedom of trade) implications. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an application by Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (Biscuit Division) seeking permission to close its undertaking, as required under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The company sought closure due to various reasons, including financial viability issues. The central dispute revolved around whether the State of Maharashtra, as the appropri...

Big Relief for Mothers: Supreme Court Backs Woman’s Right to Benefit After Remarriage

11Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Big Relief for Mothers: Supreme Court Backs Woman’s Right to Benefit After Remarriage

The Supreme Court ruled that K. Umadevi is entitled to maternity leave under FR 101(a), setting aside the High Court Division Bench's decision. The Court emphasized a purposive and liberal interpretation of maternity benefit provisions, aligning with reproductive rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and international conventions, irrespective of prior children not in the mother's custody or born from a previous marriage. Facts Of The Case: K. Umadevi, the appellant, married A. Suresh in 2006, having two children from this wedlock in 2007 and 2011. Their marriage was dissolved in 2017, and the children remained in the custody of her former husband. In December 2012, she joined government service as an English Teacher in Tamil Nadu. On September 12, 2018, the appellant remarried M...

Judicial Service Reinstatement: Supreme Court Rules Against “Minor Irregularity” Discharge

7Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Judicial Service Reinstatement: Supreme Court Rules Against “Minor Irregularity” Discharge

The Supreme Court overturned the discharge of a judicial probationer, holding that termination based on alleged misconduct (like simultaneous degrees or non-disclosure of past employment after resignation) without a proper inquiry and opportunity to be heard is stigmatic and punitive, violating principles of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that minor omissions after resignation are not grounds for discharge, especially when the probationer completed training successfully Facts Of The Case: Pinky Meena, holding multiple degrees including LL.B. and LL.M., was a Grade-II Teacher in the Rajasthan Education Department from 2014. She applied for the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate post following an advertisement on November 18, 2017. After selectio...

Supreme Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal Over Fake Transfer Order – Natural Justice Principles Explained

4Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal Over Fake Transfer Order – Natural Justice Principles Explained

The Supreme Court held that natural justice violations must cause actual prejudice to invalidate disciplinary proceedings. Technical non-compliance with procedural rules doesn't automatically vitiate departmental action. Courts assess whether different outcomes would emerge if procedures were followed. Preponderance of probability standard applies in disciplinary cases, not criminal proof standards. Facts Of The Case: S. Janaki Iyer was appointed as a Hindi trained graduate teacher at Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan, Bangalore on probation from January 11, 1989, and became permanent from April 16, 1992. Since her husband worked in Mumbai, she sought transfer from Bangalore to Mumbai or Pune. A transfer order dated October 1, 1991, allegedly signed by VK Jain, Assistant Commissioner (Headqu...