Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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