Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Supreme Court Bars Post-Divorce Maintenance Claims When Wife Voluntarily Waived Maintenance In Settlement Agreement Advocate Is An Officer Of Court, Not Mere Agent Of Client: Allahabad High Court Distinguishes Between Active Concealment & Statement In Ignorance, Slaps Cost On Litigants For Misleading Bench Cannot Summon Accused Mechanically On Protest Petition Without Assigning Justifiable Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court Increment Not A Bounty: Allahabad High Court Rules Public Holiday Cannot Delay Pay Hike For Teachers Joining Next Working Day Paying Taxes Or Utility Connections Confer No Legal Ownership Over Govt Land': Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Demolition Of Encroachment 'Cannot Compel Public Authority To Collect Data From Private Bodies': Bombay High Court Quashes CIC Orders Directing SEBI To Procure BSE Records Under RTI Act Section 10 CPC Cannot Stay Previously Instituted Title Suit Pending Subsequent Probate Case; Inherent Powers Under Section 151 Inapplicable When Probate Dismissed: Calcutta High Court Mere Phone Calls Without Transcripts No Ground For Murder Conspiracy: Delhi High Court Clear Violation Of Section 42 NDPS Act': Gujarat High Court Holds Failure To Record Secret Info In Writing Fatal When Police Officer Had Time To Act JK High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Cop Accused Of Threatening Advocate Over Phone Call Without Prior Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Custody Unwarranted For Mere Formalities Once Weapon Is Recovered: Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail In BNS Axe Attack Case Circumstances Of Crime Can Be Assessed During Trial: High Court Upholds Trial Of Minor As Adult Under JJ Act In Murder Case Statutory Deposit Under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC Is A Sine Qua Non; Litigant Cannot Stall Auction Sale By Merely Blaming Counsel: Madras High Court Ban Junk Food Within 50 Metres Of Schools: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance To Enforce FSSAI Norms, Protect Children From Obesity

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