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 Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal GST Officer Froze Business Accounts Without Any Legal Basis, Ignored Taxpayer for Three Months: Bombay High Court Imposes Personal Costs Weapon Recovered, But No Forensic Report, No Independent Witness — Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused

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