Category: Service

Service Matters

Service Law – Merging of staff from one department to another – Order for merging Adult Education Department staff into Education Department, providing category-wise seniority – The High Court ruled that merging cadres is a policy decision and cannot be interfered with -The State’s actions have been delayed by promotions and retirements, resulting in a lack of service for many – The High Court’s judgment is upheld, and the appeals are dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAFFUL SHUKLA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal,…

Service Matters

Promotion by selection through LDCE vis-à-vis competitive examination is a facility or a chance given for out of their promotion without waiting for the normal course of promotion – It in effect is selection through competitive examination within the limited category of candidates and cannot be equated with normal promotion – This being the position, the argument that regular promotion criteria had to be applied with regard to medical fitness even in the matter of selection through LDCE is not acceptable

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PAVNESH KUMAR — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Civil…

Service Matters

Service Law – Appointment – “anticipated vacancies” – To sum up the position of law as it stands, once clear and anticipated vacancies have been advertised, appointments can only be made on these vacancies – Vacancies which could not be anticipated before the date of advertisement, or the vacancies which did not exist at the time of advertisement, are the vacancies for the future i.e., next selection process.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIVEK KAISTH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia,…

Service Matters

Service Law – Relaxation – Eligibility qualifications – State had power to relax the eligibility criteria, the same could not have been done mid-stream without giving wide publicity of such change, and opportunity to similarly situated candidates to apply and compete with others

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANKITA THAKUR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Manoj Misra and Hrishikesh Roy,…

Service Matters

Forfeiture of gratuity – Compulsory retirement; removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment and dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment are distinct and separate punishments – Act of forfeiture of gratuity is not envisaged as the provisions are silent on the aspect of forfeiture in case of compulsory retirement.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JYOTIRMAY RAY — Appellant Vs. THE FIELD GENERAL MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan,…

Service Matters

HELD clearly of the view that the manner in which the applicants have been denied empanelment for the post of Colonel on a selection basis is arbitrary. Besides being violative of the fundamental principles of fairness embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution, the whole approach has been contrary to both the judgment of this Court in Nitisha as well as the applicable policy framework laid down by the Army authorities.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NITISHA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala and…

Service Matters

Service Law – Appointment – Post of Village Development Officers – A candidate/applicant has to comply with all the conditions/eligibility criteria as per the advertisement before the cut-off date mentioned therein unless extended by the recruiting authority – Advertisement clearly specified the essential qualification was a Course of Computer Concept Certificate – Appellants despite opportunity to appear to show such equivalence, having failed to do so, nothing survives on this count – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. )…

You missed