Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court Treating Equals Unequally Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court Strikes Down IOCL's Tiebreaker rule Preferring Younger Candidate in Tender Selection Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case Taxpayer Cannot Be Penalized For Department's Mistake In Deposit Of GST — Allahabad High Court Directs NOIDA To Compensate The Taxpayer For Wrongful Imposition Of Tax And Penalty “When Large-Scale Fraud Vitiates Selection, En Masse Cancellation Is Inevitable: Supreme Court Validates Quashing of WBSSC 2016 Recruitment Reopening Based on Wrong Mutual Fund is No Reopening at All — Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice for Lack of Nexus Between Allegation and Actual Transaction Exceeding Official Duty Does Not Automatically Remove Section 197 CrPC Protection: Supreme Court Quashed Proceedings Against Police Officials Possession Of A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute The Qualification Prescribed Under  Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidate Without Required Lascar’s Licence Dismissal for Default Without Considering COVID Restrictions Was Illegal: Supreme Court Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Judicial Test Likely as Waqf (Amendment) Bill Opens New Front on Constitutional Grounds Defence Under Places of Worship Act Opens Door for ASI's Impleadment: Supreme Court in Krishna Janmabhoomi Dispute

"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