CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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