Tag: Public Employment

Supreme Court Rules No Compassionate Job if Retiral Benefits Accepted
15Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

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...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: “Vacancies Can Increase After Advertisement” – Quashes Illegal Terminations from 2008
2Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: “Vacancies Can Increase After Advertisement” – Quashes Illegal Terminations from 2008

The Supreme Court held that appointments made in excess of originally advertised vacancies are permissible under the rules if filled from a valid waiting list within a reasonable period, typically the recruitment year or the succeeding year. Terminations based solely on the "excess vacancy" ground were found unjustified when such appointments align with the recruitment rule's intent and the advertisement's stipulation that vacancy numbers were subject to change. Facts Of The Case: The case involved four appellants who were appointed to Class IV posts in the District Judgeship of Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, in 2001 against an advertisement that notified twelve vacancies but included a rider that the number of posts could increase or decrease. In 2008, their services were te...
Read More
Directly Approaching High Court Barred When Tribunal Exists, Rules Supreme Court
1Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Directly Approaching High Court Barred When Tribunal Exists, Rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court upheld the principle that the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) is the designated court of first instance for service disputes, including recruitment matters. The High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked when an effective statutory alternative remedy exists, barring exceptional constitutional circumstances not present in this case. Facts Of The Case: The State of Karnataka issued a recruitment notification in March 2022 for 15,000 Graduate Primary Teacher posts. Following examinations, a provisional select list was published in November 2022. This list excluded certain married women candidates who had applied under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category because they submitted caste and income certificates in their fathers' n...
Read More
Supreme Court Reins in High Court’s Suo Motu CBI Inquiry in Recruitment Case
1Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reins in High Court’s Suo Motu CBI Inquiry in Recruitment Case

This Supreme Court ruling clarified that High Courts cannot direct a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe merely on "doubt" or "assumption." Such an extraordinary power under Article 226 must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where material prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, ensuring investigative credibility and protecting fundamental rights. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from writ petitions filed before the Allahabad High Court challenging the 2020 recruitment process for Class-III posts in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council and Assembly Secretariats. The petitioners, unsuccessful candidates, alleged the selection was arbitrary, unfair, and involved favoritism by the private external agency conducting the exams. They soug...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Reserved Candidates Who Use Age Relaxation Can’t Switch to General Category
27Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Reserved Candidates Who Use Age Relaxation Can’t Switch to General Category

The Supreme Court held that reserved category candidates who avail age relaxation are barred from migrating to unreserved vacancies if the governing recruitment rules expressly prohibit it. The Court distinguished earlier precedents, ruling that such an embargo does not violate equality, as the right to be considered for general category posts depends on the specific rules of the recruitment process in question. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a recruitment drive for Constable (GD) in various Central Armed Police Forces. The employment notification prescribed an age limit of 18-23 years, with a 3-year relaxation for OBC candidates. The respondents, OBC candidates, availed this age relaxation to participate in the selection process. However, they were not selected in the OBC c...
Read More
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...
Read More
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 Upholds “Equal Pay for Equal Work” for Contractual Assistant Professors
25Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds “Equal Pay for Equal Work” for Contractual Assistant Professors

The Supreme Court affirmed the principle of "equal pay for equal work" for contractually appointed Assistant Professors performing identical duties as their regular and ad-hoc counterparts. It directed the State to pay them the minimum of the pay scale applicable to the post, holding that the nature of the appointment (contractual) does not negate the entitlement to pay parity when the work is the same. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the State of Gujarat where a significant number of sanctioned posts for Assistant Professors in Government Engineering and Polytechnic colleges remained vacant for years. To address this shortage, the state government made appointments on both ad hoc and contractual bases. The respondents were Assistant Professors appointed on a contractua...
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
No Grace Marks: Supreme Court Shuts Down Plea from UP Lekhpal Candidates After Answer Key Change
16Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Grace Marks: Supreme Court Shuts Down Plea from UP Lekhpal Candidates After Answer Key Change

The Supreme Court held that applications challenging exam answers filed after the cut-off date (21.11.2023) were barred by its prior order and thus dismissed. However, it allowed applications that were pending as of 24.04.2025, restoring them for re-evaluation benefits, while rejecting claims for grace marks as impermissible after a court-directed re-evaluation. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a dispute concerning the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Lekhpal examination conducted in 2021-22 by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission. The initial litigation focused on the correctness of specific questions, notably Question No. 88 in Booklet Series 'F'. The Supreme Court, in an order dated 21.11.2023, directed that answer 'D' be treated as correct for this question and order...
Read More