0

Writ petition praying to quash and set aside the impugned order and allow regular appointment for government teacher allowed – Jharkhand high court

Writ petition praying to quash and set aside the impugned order and allow regular appointment for government teacher allowed – Jharkhand high court

The present writ petition is filed by 32 petitioners seeking to quash and set aside the order passed dated 07.11.2017 and praying to allow uninterrupted services to the petitioners as approved teachers and avail pensionary benefits for the petitioners. The writ petition was heard and allowed by a single judge bench of HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH in the case of Shri Oinam Manisana Singh and 31 Ors versus The State of Jharkhand and Anr. (WP (C) No. 137 of 2018)

The facts of the case are that the petitioners were Graduate Teachers in government-aided high schools and were approved by the competent authorities. the Secretary of the All Manipur Aided Secondary Schools Employees Association (Hills) (AMASSEA) submitted a representation dated 30.03.2014 to the Minister of Education (S), Manipur requesting for converting 13 (thirteen) Government Aided High Schools of the Hill Districts of Manipur having class IX and X into full-fledged Government High Schools with the absorption of the existing approved staffs. the said representation was passed by the cabinet and obtained the approval of the finance department. One of the conditions in the order was that all the 52 (fifty-two) approved Staffs, i.e., 3 (three) Graduate Teachers and 1 (one) LDC for each of the 13 (thirteen) schools who were approved by the Education (S) department will be retained after the date of conversion but the pay will be allowed after the verification from the department of education.

Petitioners aggrieved by this decision as many of the petitioners were on the date of retirement and if their past services as approved Teachers/LDCs are not absorbed or protected, the petitioners will be deprived of their valuable rights for availing their pensionary benefits and this will be discrimination against their services. the present writ petition has been filed in this matter.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioners are approved Teachers/LDCs and some of the petitioners have rendered about 36 years service as approved employees in the erstwhile 13 (thirteen) aided schools before their absorption in Government service on 08.11.2016 and during the pendency of present writ petition the 15 of the petitioners has been retired without availing pensionary benefits and the condition approved by the finance department is arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law as it was placed without any valid condition and the council relies on the judgment of East Coast Railway Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao” reported in (2010) 7 SCC 678 and “S.G. Jaisinghani Vs. Union of India” reported in AIR 1967 SC 1427. The counsel submits that the impugned order is liable to be quashed set aside and the respondents should be directed to protect the services rendered by the petitioners as approved Teachers so that the petitioners can enjoy their entitled pensionary benefits.

The court in the matter finds force and merit in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and examination of the memorandum for Cabinet dated 27.11.2015 and the proposal finds that no condition was mentioned either in the said memorandum for Cabinet or in the said decision of the Cabinet for effecting such conversion or absorption with effect from the date of issue of order by the Administrative Department and accordingly the court is of considerate view that the condition imposed by the finance department was neither in conformity with the decision taken by the State Cabinet nor is it supported by any reason, hence, the act of the Finance Department imposing such conditions is arbitrary and therefore legally unsustainable and accordingly allows the writ petition.

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Naveen Sharma

0

If the response of the show-cause notice is not filed then it can be presumed that the alleged charges were admitted – THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

If the response of the show-cause notice is not filed then it can be presumed that the alleged charges were admitted – THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

The SEBI observed a large-scale reversal of trades in the stock options segment and these trades led to the creation of artificial volume. During further investigation it was found that  Arun Kapoor HUF(NOTICEE) was found alleged for the said creation of reversal trades and a show-cause notice was sent to noticee as per the principle of natural justice to hear the response for the alleged violations of the provisions of Regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d), 4(1) and 4(2)(a) of SEBI  Regulations, 2003. After no response was filed by the noticee the adjudication proceedings were initiated against the noticee by the appointed adjudication officer AMIT KAPOOR [ADJUDICATION ORDER NO. Order/AK/AN/2021-22/14934]

The proceedings were initiated against the Noticee for the said violations and it was found that t total of 2,91,643 trades comprising 81.38% of all trades executed in the stock options segment of BSE during the Investigation Period were non-genuine trades. These non-genuine trades resulted in the creation of artificial volume to the tune of 826.21 crore units or 54.68% of the total market volume in the stock options segment of BSE during the Investigation Period. The trades executed by the noticee show that the  Noticee had executed the said trades in one contract, wherein the percentage of trades of the Noticee in stock options contracts to total trades in the said contracts is 50%. The non- genuineness of trades can be understood as the trades were conducted and reversed within a short period and the Noticee reversed the position with his counterparty with a significant price difference. Such a short period taken for reversing the trades in an illiquid stock option contract suggests the non-genuineness of these trades executed by the Noticee.

The officer notes that it cannot be a mere coincidence that the matching of trades with the same counterplay can be a coincidence but it is beforehand connection of minds and the officer relies on the judgment of SEBI v Kishore R Ajmera (AIR 2016 SC 1079). the fraudulent intent cannot be understood from the direct evidence but can be related to the trading pattern of the noticee and the office relies on Ketan Parekh vs. SEBI.

Further, the trading behavior of the Noticee confirms that such trades were not normal and the wide variation in prices of the trades in the same contract in almost no time without any basis for such wide variation, all indicate that the trades executed by the Noticee were not genuine and being non-genuine, created an appearance of artificial trading volumes in the said contract and the authority finds the violation of regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d), 4(1) and 4(2)(a) of PFUTP Regulations by the Noticee stands established. The officer relies on the judgment of SEBI Vs. Shri Ram Mutual Fund [2006] 68 SCL 216(SC).

From the investigation, the officer finds the noticee liable for the alleged violations and imposes a monetary penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 under the provisions of Section 15HA of the SEBI Act.

Click here to read the Judgment

Order reviewed by Naveen Sharma

Open chat