SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The protection cannot be expanded into a better right than one which a non-minority institution enjoys : SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Appeals have been preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh laying a challenge to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 19.11.2018 holding that Regulation 101 framed under The Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as amended is unconstitutional. Few other appeals were disposed of by taking note of the aforesaid decision. Applications have also been filed to intervene/implead by such of those persons who are also appointed by these institutions as Class "IV" employees. The Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is of vintage origin having its existence prior to independence and surviving to date. Sub-Section 4 of Section 9 of the Act speaks of the powers of the State Government. The State Government may by such order modify or rescind or make any regulation in respect of any matter and shall forthwith inform the Board accordingly. Section 16G of the Act deals with conditions of service of the head of institutions, teachers and other employees. Sub-section (2) facilitates the introduction of regulation which could be extended to various activities such as probation, scale of pay, transfer of service, grant of leave etc.Regulation 101 was inserted vide Parishad 9/592 dated 28.08.1992 and was notified by way of Govt. Notification No. 400/15-7-2(1)-90 dated 30.07.1992 and substituted through the Notification No. 300/XV-7-2(1)/90 dated02.02.1995  in the following manner , Appointing Authority except with prior approval of Inspector shall not fill up any vacancy of non-teaching post of any recognized aided institution. Regulation 101 once again went through an amendment by way of Notification No.9/898 dated 31.12.2009, which reads as under: "The appointing authority shall not fill any vacancy of the non teaching staff of recognized aided institutions, except with the approval of Inspector, subject to a restriction that District Inspector of Schools shall make available total number of vacancies to Director of Education (Secondary Education".Regulation 101 was once again amended by Government Order dated 04.09.2013, which was accordingly notified on 24.04.2014. The effect of the said amendment is to make the post of Class "IV" employees which was supposed to be filled up by the institutions through "Outsourcing" abolished. An exception has been carved out only for the dependents of those employees died in harness during employment. Apex Court The Court of Appeal has set aside the judgment of the Division Bench on 19.11.2018 and the consequential orders passed while upholding the impugned Regulation. The appeals are allowed with the directions that the respondents/writ petitioners in Civil Appeal No 2753 of 2021 are directed to be confirmed as Class "IV" employees. 

September 27, 2021 

 THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. VERSUS  PRINCIPAL ABHAY NANDAN INTER COLLEGE & ORS. 

Latest Legal News