Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: 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