Where Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt, Benefit Must Go To The Accused: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction Lok Adalat Award Cannot Override Registered Lease Deed: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Execution Petition for Eviction Deemed Conveyance Does Not Enlarge Title — Civil Court Must Adjudicate Ownership Disputes: Bombay High Court Common Intention Must Be Proved—No One Can Be Convicted Solely for Being Named Among a Group: Calcutta High Court Mere Abusive Language or Threat, Without Sexual Colour, Does Not Attract Section 354A IPC: Delhi High Court Forcing a Child to Carry the Trauma Is an Assault on Dignity: Gujarat High Court Allows Termination of 15-Week Pregnancy of 14-Year-Old Rape Survivor Framing of Charge is Not a Final Order, No Appeal Lies Under Section 14A of SC/ST Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Interest Earned from Axis Bank Is ‘Attributable’ to Credit Business – Not a Separate Source of Income: ITAT Chennai Grants 80P Deduction Must Be Proved, Not May Be Proved: Karnataka High Court Upholds Triple Murder Conviction On Complete Chain Of Circumstantial Evidence Statutory Scheme Overrides Hereditary Claims: Kerala High Court Upholds Executive Officer Appointment at Malamakkavu Ayyappa Temple No Mid-Stream Change In Examination Centre Once Exams Are Underway:  Orissa High Court Draws Line On Judicial Interference Forest Allegation Found Baseless, Petitioner Had Personal Grudge: NGT Dismisses Plea Alleging Illegal Mining in Raisen Protected Forest CPC Has No Role in Consumer Forums: National Commission Slams Procedural Missteps in Insurance Complaint Transfer Case Permit Is Not a Formality, It’s a Legal Necessity: Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Insurer to ‘Pay and Recover’ for Accident Caused by Vehicle Plying Outside Authorized States A Compromise Before Court Is Not a Private Contract but a Solemn Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail Senior Citizens Misled with FD Promises Can’t Be Bound by Insurance Contracts: Chandigarh State Commission Upholds Full Refund with Interest No Specific Forum Under Trust Act to Adjudicate Election Disputes Involving Fraud: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Civil Court Jurisdiction Mere Presence is Not Conspiracy: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Ganja Case Where Intermediate Quantity Alone Recovered from Accused Sufficient Cause Is Not a Matter of Sympathy, But Substance: Bombay High Court Rejects 645-Day Delay in Filing Review Petition

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