Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

Supreme Court Upholds Cadre Merger in Education Department: "Policy Decision Generally Not to Be Interfered With"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India today upheld the merger of cadres in the Education Department, dismissing the appeals filed against the decision. The bench, comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal, delivered a judgment affirming the High Court's earlier decision, emphasizing the principle that "merger of cadres is a policy decision which cannot generally be interfered with."

The appeals, Civil Appeal Nos. 786 and 787 of 2013, challenged the order dated April 9, 1999, which merged the staff of the Adult Education Department with the Education Department and provided category-wise seniority. The appellants, who were already working in the Education Department, sought to quash this merger order.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court meticulously examined the posts, responsibilities, and pay scales involved in the merger and concluded that they were at the same level. This scrutiny led the court to dismiss the appellants' claims for a lack of substantial grounds for interference.

Justice Bindal, in his judgment, stated, "The level of posts being merged was examined and it was opined that these were at the same level. The argument raised by the writ petitioners before the High Court that there could be a better policy could not be a ground to quash the same."

The judgment also addressed concerns regarding personal liberty and seniority impacted by the merger. The court noted the significant delay in raising the issue, with many officers having been promoted or retired in the 24 years since the merger. "Other officers in the cadre who may be likely to be affected immediately with the merger, were not aggrieved with the action of the State," the judgment read.

This decision marks a pivotal moment in the legal discourse surrounding government policy decisions and their judicial review. The Supreme Court's stance reiterates the limited scope of judicial interference in policy matters, particularly when the decisions involve intricate administrative details and long-standing practices.

Date of Decision: 12 December  2023.

PRAFFUL SHUKLA AND OTHERS VS GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH

 

Latest Legal News