Accused Loses Right To Default Bail By Acquiescence If Extension Orders Are Challenged Only After Chargesheet Filing: Supreme Court AP High Court Orders Release Of Vehicle Seized For Mineral Transport Violations Upon Payment Of Penalty, Says Rules Don't Mandate Indefinite Detention Short Time Gap Between 'Last Seen' And Death Clinches Murder Conviction Against Fired Driver: Allahabad High Court Court Must Restore Possession To Dispossessed Party If Ex-Parte Decree Is Set Aside Even If Property Descriptions Differ: Andhra Pradesh High Court Management Cannot Deny Compassionate Appointment Citing Delay If It Failed To Maintain Service Records: Calcutta High Court Long Possession Alone Does Not Establish Tenancy; Burden Of Proof Lies On Person Claiming Status Of Tenant: Bombay High Court Consent Of Minor Immaterial: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction But Acquits Man Of Kidnapping Charges Notional Income Of Minor In Motor Accident Claims Must Be Based On Minimum Wages Of Skilled Workmen: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹56.8 Lakhs Revenue Records Serve Only Fiscal Purpose, Cannot Be Treated As Proof Of Title To Property: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Grant 'Deemed Extension' Of Time For Deposit In Specific Performance Decree: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Becomes Inexecutable If Balance Sale Consideration Not Deposited Within Stipulated Time: Supreme Court Supreme Court Protects MSMEs From Closure Over Missing Environmental Clearance If Pollution Boards Were Unaware Of Requirement Industrial Units Operating With Valid PCB Consents Can't Be Closed Merely For Technical Want Of Prior Environmental Clearance: Supreme Court Punishment On Charge Not Framed In Show Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Supreme Court Reduces Doctor's Penalty To Censure Plea Of Acquiescence Cannot Defeat Lawful Title Claim When Encroachment Is Established: Madras High Court Board Of Revenue Can't Quash Unchallenged Orders While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction: Orissa High Court Penetration To Any Extent Sufficient For Offence Under POCSO Act; Intact Hymen No Bar For Conviction: Meghalaya High Court Expeditious Conclusion Of Summary Force Court Trial Not Arbitrary If Procedure Followed; ITBPF Act Self-Contained: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Doesn't Bar Appeal Filed Prior To Withdrawal Of Earlier Defective Appeal Against Same Order: Madhya Pradesh High Court Appointment Of Receiver Is An 'Extreme Remedy', Cannot Be Ordered Lightly Especially After Decades Of Inaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Supreme Court: Prior Approval of Director of Education Mandatory for Employee Termination in Recognized Institutions

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, January 19, 2023: In a significant ruling today, the Supreme Court of India emphasized that prior approval of the Director of Education is mandatory before terminating an employee in recognized educational institutions. The apex court observed that the non-compliance of this requirement renders the termination null and void.

The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice M. R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar. The court overturned the decision of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, which had upheld the termination of an employee in a case pertaining to Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti & Ors. vs. Gajanand Sharma.

The bench, in its judgment, stated, "No employee of a recognized institution shall be removed, dismissed, or reduced in rank unless prior approval of the Director of Education has been obtained." It further emphasized that this provision, as outlined in Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Act, 1989, applies irrespective of whether the termination follows disciplinary proceedings or not.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier decision in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Director of Education and Ors. (2016) 6 SCC 541, which held that prior approval of the Director of Education is mandatory before terminating an employee in a recognized institution. The court rejected the contention put forth by the management that the Raj Kumar decision did not consider the earlier ruling in T.M.A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481.

The bench criticized the Division Bench of the High Court for failing to follow the binding decision of the Supreme Court and making incorrect observations about the consideration of the T.M.A. Pai Foundation decision in the Raj Kumar case. The court emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and thorough reading of judgments before arriving at conclusions.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the order of the learned Tribunal, which had previously set aside the employee's termination. The appellant, Gajanand Sharma, will be reinstated in service with 50% back wages. The court also directed that the appellant be entitled to all other benefits, including seniority, on a notional basis.

The Supreme Court further remanded one of the appeals to the High Court for fresh consideration on its merits.

 

Date of Decision: January 19, 2023

Gajanand Sharma VS Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti & Ors.           

Latest Legal News