Recovery of Salary - The Legal Chamber

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...

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...

Tag: Recovery of Salary

State Cannot Penalize Employee for Its Own Error, Rules Supreme Court