Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

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.           

Similar News