Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court

Appellant Had No Legal Right to Continue in Service, Especially When There Is No Order or Letter Placed on Record – Supreme Court Dismisses Claim for Salary by Assistant Teacher

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a decisive ruling, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal of an Assistant Teacher seeking the release of her salary, emphasizing that the appellant had no legal right to continue in service after her appointment was declared illegal.

The judgment, delivered by the bench of J. [HIMA KOHLI] and J. [RAJESH BINDAL] on August 22, 2023, upheld the High Court’s decision that the appellant’s appointment was void ab initio.

The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Bengabari M.E. School and sought the release of her salary from 12.03.2001 onwards. However, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, declared all such appointments, including the appellant’s, as illegal and void ab initio, as they were made against non-existent posts.

The Supreme Court observed, “Once the appointment of the appellant had been declared illegal and void ab initio, and was canceled by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam vide order dated 18.10.2001, the appellant could not legally continue in service thereafter, unless that cancellation order was set aside” [Para 7].

The court further noted the inconsistency in the appellant’s appointment, as she was appointed beyond the Udalguri Legislative Assembly Constituency, making it invalid and in violation of the Rules [Para 4].

The judgment also highlighted the implausibility of the appellant’s claim, stating, “Even otherwise, it is difficult to believe that a person has been working for two decades without any salary” [Para 7].

The appeal was dismissed, concurring with the reasons recorded by the High Court, emphasizing that the appellant had no legal right to continue in service or claim salary for any period. The ruling serves as a stern reminder of the importance of adhering to legal procedures and rules in government appointments.

Date of Decision: August 22, 2023

SMT. DULU DEKA  vs STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.        

 

Similar News