Tag: Seniority

Right to Education Act Upheld: Supreme Court Reinstates Teachers Who Qualified TET Later
17Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Right to Education Act Upheld: Supreme Court Reinstates Teachers Who Qualified TET Later

The Supreme Court held that teachers appointed before 31st March 2015 were granted a grace period until 31st March 2019 to acquire the mandatory Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualification under the amended RTE Act. Since the appellants had cleared TET well before this deadline, their subsequent termination solely for lacking the certificate at the initial appointment was illegal and set aside. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns the appellants, Uma Kant and another, who were appointed as Assistant Teachers at Jwala Prasad Tiwari Junior High School, Kanpur, in March 2012. Their appointments were made pursuant to an advertisement from July 2011. At the time of their appointment, the mandatory Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualification, introduced by a National Counci...
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
Supreme Court Directs Independent Officer to Verify Arrears, Stop Illegal Recoveries from Workers
28Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Directs Independent Officer to Verify Arrears, Stop Illegal Recoveries from Workers

This Supreme Court judgment addresses contempt proceedings for non-compliance with a prior Supreme Court order modifying an industrial tribunal award. The Court appoints an auditor to resolve wage calculation discrepancies, assess excess payment recoveries, and determine statutory gratuity interest. It refrains from intervening in a separate High Court matter concerning provident fund dues, affirming the High Court's competence on that issue. Facts Of The Case: The contempt petition arose from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation's (BMC) non-compliance with a Supreme Court judgment dated April 7, 2017. That judgment had modified an Industrial Tribunal award, which originally directed the BMC to grant permanent status and retrospective benefits to approximately 2,700 sanitation workers ...
Read More
Supreme Court’s Mixed Verdict for a Forest Officer :Right Declared, But Promotion Delayed
24Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Mixed Verdict for a Forest Officer :Right Declared, But Promotion Delayed

The Supreme Court ruled that the term "State Forest Service" under the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966, refers to the service as a whole, not individual posts. The Court held that once a state service is approved, its substantively appointed gazetted officers, including Forest Range Officers, are eligible for consideration for promotion to the Indian Forest Service. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, P. Maruthi Prasada Rao, was appointed as a Forest Range Officer (FRO) in 2006. In 2021, he petitioned the authorities, arguing that FROs should be considered part of the "State Forest Service" and thus be eligible for promotion to the Indian Forest Service (IFoS) when sufficient numbers of senior officers like Deputy Conservators of Forests (DCFs) and Assistant Conserv...
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
Big Win for Disabled Workers: Supreme Court Strikes Down Discriminatory GO on Seniority and Promotion
10Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Big Win for Disabled Workers: Supreme Court Strikes Down Discriminatory GO on Seniority and Promotion

The Supreme Court overturned the Kerala High Court's judgments, restoring previous orders that granted benefits of seniority, probation, and promotion to appellants with benchmark disabilities. The Court found the State Government's subsequent order, which sought to deny these benefits to those regularly appointed on supernumerary posts, to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court affirmed that once regular appointments were made, associated benefits could not be withdrawn. Facts Of The Case: The appellants are individuals with benchmark physical disabilities exceeding 40% who were temporarily engaged in various public institutions in Kerala under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, for periods not exceeding 179 days. ...
Read More