Category: Service

Service Matters

All-India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007 – Rules 5(1) and 9(7B) – Court concluded that the High Court erred in setting aside the CAT Order and directed the Accepting Authority to decide on the underlying representation within 60 days – The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to prescribed timelines and the restraint to be exercised by the judiciary in administrative matters involving specialized expertise.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF HARYANA — Appellant Vs. ASHOK KHEMKA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service Matters

Service Law – Recruitment Process – Public Employment – Merely because a recruitment agency is not in a position to satisfy the Court, a relief cannot be extended to a candidate deprived as it will have a cascading effect not only on the said recruitment, but also to numerous others as well.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE TELANGANA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RECRUITMENT BOARD — Appellant Vs. SALUVADI SUMALATHA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A. S. Bopanna and M.…

Service Matters

(a) whether the appellant was entitled to withdraw her prospective resignation before the effective date; (b) whether the acceptance of her resignation by the trust was final, binding and irrevocable; and (c) what relief could be granted to the appellant – The court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the College Tribunal and the High Court

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. MRS. SUMAN V. JAIN — Appellant Vs. MARWADI SAMMELAN THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V.…

Service Matters

Institute had deviated from the original selection procedure and introduced a new criterion of “relevant subject” for PG Degree, which was not prescribed in the notification – The Court also held that the appellant was entitled to 6 marks for his additional qualification, which would have made him the highest in the list

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANOJ KUMAR — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil…

Service Matters

Class-IV employee, when in financial hardship, may represent directly to the superior but that by itself cannot amount to major misconduct for which punishment of termination from service should be imposed – It is trite law that ordinarily the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer should not be interfered by the appellate authority or by the writ court – Appellant is reinstated in service with all consequential benefits – Order of termination set-aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHATRAPAL — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. )…

Service Matters

No finding has been recorded by the authorities that the army personnel had as of fact, produced such certificates or that their explanation claiming that no such certificates were furnished by them is completely false – In effect, the authorities have not dealt with the explanations/claims of army personnel – Army personnel shall be reinstated with all consequential benefits – Appeals allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NO.2809759H EX-RECRUIT BABANNA MACHCHED — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…

Service Matters

Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022 – Rule 25 – Pension – It is well settled that pension scheme(s) floated by the State Government form a part of delegated beneficial legislation; and ought to be interpreted widely subject to such interpretation not running contrary to the express provisions of the Pension Rules – Furthermore, it would be relevant to underscore that the State Government is a model employer; and ought to uphold principles of fairness and clarity.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VINOD KANJIBHAI BHAGORA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. )…

You missed

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120(b), 153(A) and 153(AA) – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 – The case involves the Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization accused of spreading extremist ideology, committing terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorism, and recruiting members in Tamil Nadu – The central issue is whether the respondents, accused of serious offenses under the IPC and UAPA, should be granted bail – The Union of India, represented by NIA, argues that the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the offenses and the prima facie evidence against the respondents – The defence contends that the allegations are vague and the evidence, particularly the statements of protected witnesses, is unreliable – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses and the sufficiency of prima facie evidence – The Court found that the High Court did not properly consider the material evidence and recorded perverse findings regarding the involvement of the respondents in the alleged offences – The Court relied on the provisions of the UAPA and past judgments to establish the standards for granting bail in cases involving terrorism – The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents should not be released on bail, given the reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against them are prima facie true and the potential threat to national security.