Vague Allegations Of Infidelity And Harassment Without Cogent Evidence Do Not Amount To Cruelty For Divorce: Telangana High Court Supreme Court Introduces 'Periodic Review' Mechanism For Monitoring Contumacious Advocates Supreme Court Suspends Criminal Contempt Conviction Of Yatin Oza; Invokes Article 142 To Grant 'Final Act Of Forgiveness' With Periodic Conduct Review Court Must Adopt Parental Temperament While Disciplining Bar Members; SC Suspends Yatin Oza’s Contempt Conviction As ‘Final Act Of Forgiveness’ Conviction Can Be Based On Testimony Of Solitary Witness Of Sterling Quality; Indian Law Values Quality Over Quantity Of Evidence: Supreme Court Authorities Can't Turn A Blind Eye To Illegal Constructions; Must Follow Due Process For Demolition: Telangana High Court Section 506 IPC Charges Liable To Be Quashed If Threat Lacks 'Intent To Cause Alarm' To Complainant: Supreme Court SC/ST Act Offences Not Made Out If Alleged Abuse Occurs Inside Private Residence Without Public Presence: Supreme Court Election Tribunal Becomes Functus Officio After Passing Final Order; Cannot Later Declare New Result Based On Recount: Supreme Court Remarriage Contracted Immediately After Divorce Decree Before Expiry Of Limitation Period Has No Validity In Law: Telangana High Court Lack Of Notice For Spot Inspection Under Stamp Act Is An Irregularity, Not Illegality If No Prejudice Caused: Allahabad High Court Mutation Entry In Revenue Records Does Not Create Or Extinguish Title; Succession To Agricultural Land Governed Strictly By Statute: Delhi High Court Children Shouldn't Be Deprived Of Parental Affection Due To Matrimonial Disputes; Courts Must Ensure Child Isn't Tutored: Andhra Pradesh High Court 138 NI Act | Wife Of Sole Proprietor Not Vicariously Liable For Dishonoured Cheque She Didn't Sign: Calcutta High Court Quashes Proceedings State Cannot Profit From Its Own Delay In Deciding Land Tenure Conversion Applications: Gujarat High Court Owner Of Establishment Cannot Evade Liability Under Employees’ Compensation Act By Shifting Responsibility To Manager: Bombay High Court Developer Assigning Only Leasehold Rights Via Sub-Lease Not A 'Promoter', Project Doesn't Require RERA Registration: Allahabad High Court Court Cannot Be Oblivious To Juveniles Used By Organized Syndicates To Commit Heinous Crimes: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To CCL Conviction For Assaulting Public Servant Sustainable Based On Victim's Testimony & Medical Evidence Even If Eye-Witnesses Turn Hostile: Bombay 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