Without Partition By Metes And Bounds, Co-Sharer Cannot Seek Recovery Of Possession: Supreme Court Clarifies Limits Of Order VII Rule 7 CPC Supreme Court Holds Plaintiff Entitled To Declaration Of Title Over Undivided Half Share Despite Claiming Entire Property Under Gift Deed Supreme Court Reaffirms Legality Of Remainder Of Natural Life Sentences Without Remission, Dismisses Batch Of Writ Petitions 'State Cannot Take Advantage Of Its Own Wrong': Supreme Court Holds Promotees Entitled To Count Ad Hoc Service For Seniority If Within Quota 'Elevators Are Common Carriers, Entail Heightened Duty of Care': Supreme Court Upholds NCDRC Order Holding OTIS Principally Liable For Death Due To Malfunctioning Lift Supreme Court Dismisses Compensation Claim Under Motor Vehicles Act, Holds Reach Stacker Operating in Custom-Bonded ICD Area Is Not a "Motor Vehicle" Missing ACRs Due To Illegal Termination Cannot Block Higher Judicial Pay Scales: Supreme Court Grants Relief To Rajasthan Judicial Officer Subsequent Suit Generally Transferable To Court Where Earlier Suit On Same Subject Matter Is Pending: Allahabad High Court Successive Anticipatory Bail Maintainable Under BNSS If Fact Situation Changes Or Previous Findings Become Obsolete: Andhra Pradesh High Court Tenant's "Deemed Purchaser" Right Defeated By Retrospective Notification Under Section 88(1)(b) Of Tenancy Act: Bombay High Court Buyer Not Entitled To Refund Of Earnest Money Once Sale Deed Is Duly Executed Under The Agreement: Calcutta High Court Contradictory Pleas Vitiate Defence; Drawer Liable Even If Signed Blank Cheque Was Handed Over: Delhi High Court Working Mother's Relocation To Another City Not A Ground To Completely Deny Overnight Custody To Father: Karnataka High Court Civil Courts Barred From Granting Injunctions Against SARFAESI Actions Even If Partition Suit Is Maintainable: Kerala High Court S.147 NI Act Is A Special Law, Overrides S.320 CrPC; Offence Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Appeal: Madras High Court Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court

Seniority Must Be Counted from Date of Joining, Even in Cases of Ad Hoc Appointments: Gauhati High Court

23 October 2024 8:39 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Gauhati High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by Naren Chandra Deka in the case of Naren Chandra Deka vs. Kalyan Das and Others (Writ Appeal No. 101 of 2024), upholding the Single Judge’s decision to quash the appellant’s appointment as In-charge Principal of Paschim Barigog Dhirdutta Higher Secondary School, Nalbari, Assam. The court emphasized that the respondent, Kalyan Das, held seniority based on his initial date of joining in 1998, and that seniority accrued through an ad hoc appointment which followed the proper selection process could not be disregarded.
Misconduct in Obtaining Simultaneous Degrees Doesn’t Invalidate Seniority
The appellant, Deka, argued that Das had committed misconduct by obtaining his B.Ed. and M.A. degrees simultaneously from two different universities without prior permission from the appointing authority, as required under Rule 13 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. However, the court clarified that while this may constitute misconduct, it does not invalidate the degrees nor affect the respondent’s seniority for promotion purposes.
The case arose from an order dated March 30, 2023, issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, appointing Deka as the In-charge Principal of Paschim Barigog Dhirdutta Higher Secondary School. This appointment was challenged by Kalyan Das, the respondent, who contended that Deka was junior to him in service and that the appointment order had disregarded seniority.
The Single Judge, in a judgment dated February 27, 2024, quashed Deka's appointment, holding that Das had been in service since 1998, and his seniority should be counted from his date of joining. Deka then filed the present appeal, seeking to overturn the Single Judge’s decision.
One of the key issues raised was whether Das's seniority could be counted from his initial ad hoc appointment in 1998. Deka argued that since Das’s service was only confirmed in 2010, his seniority should be calculated from that year. The court rejected this argument, stating that Das’s ad hoc appointment followed a valid selection process, and his seniority must be counted from his date of joining in 1998. Relying on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers Assn. v. State of Maharashtra (1990), the court noted, “Where an ad hoc appointment is regularized, seniority must be counted from the date of initial joining.”
Deka also contended that Das had obtained two degrees simultaneously, without permission from the appropriate authority, which amounted to misconduct under Rule 13 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. However, the court found that while the simultaneous acquisition of degrees without permission did constitute misconduct, it did not nullify the degrees nor Das's right to seniority or promotion. As the court stated, “A degree obtained without prior permission constitutes misconduct but does not invalidate the degree itself.”
The appellate court emphasized the limited scope of interference in intra-court appeals filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. It noted that it would not interfere with the discretion of the Single Judge unless there was a patent error or violation of well-established legal principles. Since the appellant failed to demonstrate any such error, the court declined to substitute its discretion for that of the Single Judge.
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge's ruling that Das’s seniority should be counted from 1998, and that his right to promotion as the In-charge Principal could not be overlooked. The court also affirmed that Deka's appointment as In-charge Principal was rightly quashed, and that Das’s seniority and qualifications made him the rightful candidate for the post.
The court concluded by noting that there was no merit in Deka's arguments and no reason to interfere with the Single Judge’s decision. Therefore, Deka’s appeal was dismissed.
Date of Decision: October 22, 2024
Naren Chandra Deka vs. Kalyan Das and Others

 

Latest Legal News