Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K 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