Tag: Recruitment Rules

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
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: No Absorption for Waitlisted Candidate After Recruitment Process Ends
31Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: No Absorption for Waitlisted Candidate After Recruitment Process Ends

The Supreme Court held that a candidate in the reserved panel (waitlist) has no vested right to appointment once the selected candidates join their posts. A legal concession made before a tribunal cannot bind the authorities if it contravenes statutory recruitment rules or extends the life of a waitlist indefinitely. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a 1997 recruitment drive by All India Radio, Eastern Zone, for three Technician posts reserved for Scheduled Castes. The respondent, Subit Kumar Das, was placed at Serial No. 1 in the Reserved Panel (waitlist). All three selected candidates joined their posts, so the waitlist was not operated. In 1999, during litigation before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), the appellants (Union of India) gave a statement that the r...
Read More
Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Says Natural Justice Violated in Teacher Termination Case
25Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

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 ...
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
Supreme Court Reins In High Court’s Review Power in Judicial Recruitment Case
13Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reins In High Court’s Review Power in Judicial Recruitment Case

The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its review jurisdiction by re-adjudicating matters already decided in the original writ petition. The Court reiterated that review is not an appeal and cannot be invoked to re-examine a contention merely because a different view is possible. The scope of review is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. Facts Of The Case: The Madhya Pradesh High Court issued an advertisement for recruiting Civil Judges (Entry Level) under amended rules that prescribed new eligibility criteria. The respondents, Jyotsna Dohalia and another, participated in the preliminary examination but failed to secure the cut-off marks of 113. Their writ petition challenging the result was dismissed by the High Court on May 7, 2024, which held ...
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 Mandates Timely Promotions and Cadre Review for CAPF Officers
11Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Mandates Timely Promotions and Cadre Review for CAPF Officers

The Supreme Court affirmed Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) as 'Organized Group-A Services,' entitling officers to Non-Functional Financial Upgradation. It directed a six-month cadre review and recruitment rule revision. The Court also suggested progressively reducing IPS deputation posts in CAPFs to address officer stagnation and grievances Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a long-standing grievance of officers belonging to the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) – including CRPF, BSF, SSB, ITBP, and CISF. These officers sought recognition of their services as 'Organized Group-A Services' (OGAS), a crucial classification for ensuring parity with other Group-A services and entitlement to benefits such as Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU). A primary co...
Read More