Tag: Termination of Service

Supreme Court Clarifies: Pending Cases Don’t Justify Violating Active Court Orders
6Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Pending Cases Don’t Justify Violating Active Court Orders

The Supreme Court held that once an interim court order is in operation, it remains binding unless specifically vacated. Merely releasing a reserved matter does not invalidate or nullify an existing interim order. Violating such an order without obtaining prior leave from the court constitutes a prima facie case for contempt proceedings. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a professor at KGMU, was appointed as the Nodal Officer for implementing a software system in 2010. In 2017, audit objections arose regarding expenditures during his tenure, leading to a disciplinary inquiry. The professor challenged the preliminary inquiry and a subsequent notice via his first writ petition in 2018. While this petition was reserved for judgment, the disciplinary committee sent him a questionnaire, which...
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
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
State Cannot Penalize Employee for Its Own Error, Rules Supreme Court
7Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

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

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...
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