Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

Supreme Court Grants Liberty to Petitioners to Represent for Revision of National Award for Teachers Selection Procedure

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin

In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court has granted liberty to the petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No. 908/2019 to make a detailed representation to the Union of India for the revision of the selection procedure under the National Award for Teachers (NAT) Scheme. The court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioners the opportunity to present their concerns regarding the selection process.

The petitioners had sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to revise the selection procedure and accommodate every candidate, while also advocating for the elimination of the jury system at the national level. The revised guidelines introduced in 2018 were challenged, with the petitioners alleging that the new system was opaque and discriminatory.

The court, after considering the arguments put forth by the petitioners and the Union of India, acknowledged the government’s prerogative in formulating the selection procedure based on expert opinion and relevant criteria. However, it granted the petitioners the liberty to submit a detailed representation to the respondent if they intend to revise the selection procedure in the future.

“In the event, the respondent intends to revise the selection procedure in the future, the petitioners have been granted the liberty to make a detailed representation, which may be considered for implementation,” stated the court.

The judgement emphasized that if the representation contains aspects that could potentially improve the selection procedure, the respondent should duly consider and implement them.

The decision brings hope to the petitioners and others concerned about the transparency and inclusivity of the NAT Scheme’s selection process. It opens the door for further discussion and potential revisions to ensure fairness and equality in recognizing and honoring the contribution of teachers across the country.

The Supreme Court’s judgement reflects its commitment to justice and the importance of continually reassessing policies to address concerns raised by citizens.

Date of Decision: July 14, 2023

GIRISHA CHANDRA MISHRA & ORS.   vs UNION OF INDIA             

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Girisha_Chandra_Mishra_vs_Union_Of_India_on_14_July_2023_SC.pdf"]                  

Latest Legal News

  • by Admin
    28 January 2026 8:57 AM
Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings
  • by sayum
    28 January 2026 6:55 AM
Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal
  • by sayum
    28 January 2026 6:55 AM
Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC
  • by sayum
    28 January 2026 6:55 AM
Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt
  • by sayum
    28 January 2026 6:55 AM
Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court
  • by sayum
    28 January 2026 6:54 AM
Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings