NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

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