Order Taking Cognizance Must Reflect Application Of Mind; Section 197 CrPC Sanction Mandatory For Prosecuting Public Servants: Karnataka High Court Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Partially Against Specific Defendants Or Properties; Limitation Is A Triable Issue: Telangana High Court Employee Having National Trade Certificate & Prior Experience To Be Treated As 'Highly Skilled' For Compensation: Orissa High Court Insurance Company Entitled To Subpoena Investigating Officer For Vehicle Records When Insured Is Untraceable: Madras High Court Seller's Fraudulent Conduct & Non-Disclosure Of Mortgage Justify Refund Of Advance Sale Consideration: Kerala High Court Complaint Under Section 138 NI Act Filed By Partner On Behalf Of Firm Maintainable Even Without Specific Authorization Letter: Gujarat High Court Extension Of Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act Requires Public Prosecutor's Independent Report, Not Just IO's Request: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orissa Grama Panchayats Act | No Bar On Rescheduling No-Confidence Motion Meeting Before Its Commencement: High Court Non-Preparation Of ‘Nil’ Seizure List After Searching Raiding Officer Not Fatal To NDPS Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Registration Of Trademark Confers Exclusive Right To Sue For Infringement Irrespective Of Whether Mark Is In Use: Delhi High Court Presence Of Magistrate Not Mandatory For Recording Dying Declaration; Conviction Can Be Based On DD Recorded By Police: Bombay High Court Routine Bank Transfers Between Spouses For Daily Needs Are Gratuitous Payments, Not Recoverable As Entrusted Funds: Kerala High Court Clerical Lapses Under Work Pressure Amount To Dereliction Of Duty, Not Crime: Madras High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Deputy BDO Burden Of Proving Sale Deed Is Bona Fide Lies On Beneficiary If Executant Is Illiterate Or Vulnerable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Employee Cannot Take Advantage Of Own Delay; Employer Not Required To Preserve Disciplinary Records For Eternity: Bombay High Court Deadline To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Trade Marks Rules Is Directory, Registrar Can Extend Time Under Section 131: Bombay High Court Exclusion Of Interest In Insurance Policy Is Conditional; Insurer Must Plead & Prove Employer's Failure To Comply With Act To Avoid Liability: Kerala High Court Practicing Lawyer Entitled To Interim Maintenance From Husband If Income Is Insufficient To Maintain Standard Of Living: Orissa High Court Section 138 NI Act Offences Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Revision Or Appeal: Madras High Court Unsuccessful Party Seeking Post-Award Interim Relief Under Section 9 Faces 'Higher Threshold', Must Show Rare & Compelling Circumstances: 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