Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization

"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"]

Latest Legal News