MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

"Appellant Cannot Be Allowed to Suffer": Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Reinstate Lecturer

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


August 28, 2023 — In a landmark decision that underscores the judiciary's role in "doing substantial justice," the Supreme Court of India invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to reinstate a lecturer who had been embroiled in an employment dispute for years. The bench, consisting of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol, declared, "Even assuming that there was an error committed by the College Management...the appellant cannot be allowed to suffer."

Background

The case centered around the appointment of a lecturer in English. The appellant was initially appointed in the open category, while the fifth respondent was appointed in the Scheduled Caste category. Both had applied for the open category, and the dispute arose over who should have been rightfully appointed based on the order of merit.

 Key Observations

- "The appellant was a regularly appointed candidate and therefore, her appointment on a full-time basis cannot be disturbed," observed the Court, highlighting the appellant's qualifications, including a PhD, which exempted her from the NET requirement.

  - The Court noted that the fifth respondent did not object to the appellant's appointment initially but later contended her seniority based on the first advertisement. "The fifth respondent never made any protest about her appointment against the post reserved for the Scheduled Caste category," the judgment read.

- The Tribunal and High Court had earlier decisions that led to the appellant's role being reduced to a part-time position. The Supreme Court found these decisions to be lacking in consideration for the appellant's career, stating, "In this process, the appellant has become age-barred to get the appointment to the post of lecturer elsewhere."

 The Decision

Invoking its powers under Article 142, the Supreme Court directed the reinstatement of the appellant as a full-time lecturer, effective from January 5, 1995. "For doing substantial justice, this is a fit case where we should invoke our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for continuing her appointment on a full-time basis," the Court declared.

The State Government was also directed to release the necessary grant-in-aid for the appellant's salary, ensuring that the fifth respondent's status remains unaffected.

Date of Decision: August 28, 2023

Vijaya Bhiku Kadam vs Mayani Bhag Shikshan Prasarak   Mandal & Ors.     

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/28-Aug-2023_Vijaya_Bhikhu_Vs_Mayani_Bhag_Shikshan_Mandal.pdf"]

Similar News