0

The Supreme Showdown: Unravelling the Sevika Saga and Nepotism Clauses.

Blog, Supreme Court , , , , , ,

Date: January 08, 2024.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Quorum: Hon’ble J. B.R. Gavai, J. Sandeep Mehta.

 

Background of the Case

The case revolves around the appointment of Anganwadi workers (Sevikas) in the state of Bihar. In October 2012, the District Programme Officer in Katihar published a notice for the selection of Anganwadi workers. Both Anjum Ara (the appellant) and the respondent applied for the position. Anjum Ara scored 80.60 marks, while The respondent scored 48.60 marks. Consequently, Anjum Ara was appointed as an Anganwadi Sevika on July 2, 2013.

Aggrieved by Anjum Ara’s appointment, the respondent filed a representation before the District Programme Officer, seeking cancellation of Anjum Ara’s appointment order and a direction for her own appointment. The District Programme Officer rejected her representation on November 13, 2014. The respondent then appealed to the Appellate Authority (the Court of Joint Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Purnea), which allowed her appeal on July 30, 2015, setting aside Anjum Ara’s appointment order.

 

Legal Issues

Whether Clause 4.9 of the Anganwadi Sevika Guidelines, 2011, which imposed restrictions on the appointment of persons whose family members were employed with the State Government or its organizations, is valid and constitutional under Articles 14 (right to equality) and 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment) of the Constitution of India?

Legal Provisions

The case dealt with the interpretation of Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines and its compliance with Articles 14 (right to equality) and 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment) of the Constitution of India.

Contentions of the Petitioner

Anjum Ara contended that Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines, which formed the basis for her disqualification, had been found to be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in another case (CWJC No. 13210 of 2014). However, the learned Division Bench of the High Court ignored this fact while dismissing her appeal.

Contentions of the Respondents

The State of Bihar and The respondent asserted that Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines was a valid restriction to prevent nepotism in public employment. They argued that the High Court’s decision striking down the clause in a separate case was not binding on Anjum Ara since she did not challenge it herself. The respondents emphasized the selection process was a matter of administrative discretion where courts should not interfere unless there is a constitutional violation. They contended that setting aside Anjum Ara’s appointment in favour of the lower scoring The respondent was justified based on principles of merit and fair selection.

Judgment and Analysis

The Supreme Court allowed Anjum Ara’s appeal and set aside the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. The Court found that both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench had erred in dismissing Anjum Ara’s writ petition and appeal.

The Court observed that Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines had been struck down by the High Court in CWJC No. 13210 of 2014 as violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Once the clause was declared invalid, it ceased to exist. Therefore, it was not necessary for Anjum Ara to challenge the validity of the clause separately, as it had already been held invalid by the same High Court.

The Supreme Court held that the reasoning adopted by the learned Division Bench was unsustainable in law. When a provision has been declared unconstitutional and invalid by a court, it cannot be applied to deny someone’s rights, even if the person did not challenge the provision individually.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed Anjum Ara’s appeal, quashed the judgments of the High Court, and directed her reinstatement forthwith. Although she would not be entitled to wages for the period she was out of employment, she would be granted continuity in service for all other purposes.

This judgment reinforces the principle that once a provision or law has been declared unconstitutional by a court, it ceases to have any legal effect, and no person can be denied their rights based on such an invalid provision. The judgment upholds the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution and ensures that individuals are not deprived of their rightful employment opportunities based on arbitrary and unconstitutional criteria.

Judgement reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.

 

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

0

Supreme Court Verdict: No Property Rights for Widow After Remarriage

Blog, Supreme court , ,

Case title: KIZHAKKE VATTAKANDIYIL MADHAVAN (DEAD) THR. LRS VS.  THIYYURKUNNATH MEETHAL JANAKI AND ORS.

Case no: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8616 OF 2017

Order on: April 9, 2024

Qoram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE WITH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA

Fact of the case:

In this case, Plaintiff Thiyyer Kunnath Meethal Chandu claiming a share of the property. He has since passed away, and his descendants are now representing him. Now Sankaran is Chandu’s half-brother, son of their mother Chiruthey from her first marriage to Madhavan. And Chiruthey is Mother of Sankaran and Chandu. She married twice, first to Madhavan and then to Neelakandan after Madhavan’s death. Madhavan is Chiruthey’s first husband and Sankaran’s father and Neelakandan is Chiruthey’s second husband and Chandu’s father. The property in dispute is located in the village of Eravattur, Kozhikode district, Kerala. In 1900 Madhavan and his mother Nangeli took a loan and mortgaged the property but didn’t give possession to the lender. In 1910 Two important transactions happened on the same day; First Transaction was Chiruthey, along with Nangeli and her son Sankaran (who was a minor), leased the property to Cherupula Othayoth Cheriya Amma and her son Achuthan. And the Second Transaction happened on the same day, Cherupula Othayoth Cheriya Amma leased the property back to Chiruthey and another person named Kuttiperavan. In 1925 Kuttiperavan gave up his lease rights to Chiruthey and Sankaran. The plaintiff (Chandu) claimed 8/20 shares in the suit property, asserting the property was derived from his mother, Chiruthey.

Issues framed by court:

  • Whether Chiruthey had any title over the suit property.

Legal provisions:

Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856: Section 2: A widow loses her right to her deceased husband’s property upon remarriage.

 Contentions of Appellant:

The appellants argued that Chiruthey lost all her rights to Madhavan’s property when she remarried Neelakandan. Therefore, Chandu (her son from the second marriage) had no claim to the property. They contended that the various deeds signed by Chiruthey should be invalid because she had no legal right to the property after remarrying.

 Contentions of Respondents:

The respondents argued that the property should be partially owned by Chandu as he inherited rights from his mother, Chiruthey. They claimed she had ownership or lease rights that transferred to her son. They asserted that the deeds signed by Chiruthey, including the lease transactions, were valid and demonstrated her rights to the property.

 Court analysis & Judgement:

The court beheld at the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act of 1856, which states that a widow loses her rights to her deceased husband’s property if she remarries. The court found that this applied to Chiruthey. When she remarried Neelakandan, she lost all her rights to Madhavan’s property. The court found that the 1910 lease deeds were valid because they were signed by Nangeli (Madhavan’s mother) and Sankaran (Madhavan’s son). These deeds only gave lease rights, not ownership, and were valid for 12 years. The court examined the 1925 deed where Kuttiperavan gave up his lease rights to Chiruthey and Sankaran. It found that this deed did not extend any ownership rights beyond the original lease term. The court determined that since Chiruthey lost her rights to the property upon remarriage, Chandu could not claim ownership through her. The leases she signed did not give her or her descendants ownership rights. The Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that Chandu and his successors could not claim any ownership of the property. The court upheld the decision of the First Appellate Court, which had dismissed Chandu’s claim. Therefore, the appeal by Sankaran’s successors was allowed, and Chandu’s claim to the property was rejected.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Antara Ghosh

Click to view the full judgement

0

Appellants must include accurate copies of the Trial Court’s and First Appellate Court’s judgements in their filings: Supreme Court

Blog, blog , , , ,

Case title: Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust vs Ganga Bai Menariya.

Case no.: Civil Appeal No.722 Of 2012

Decided on: 20.02.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath, Hon’ble Justice.

 

Hon’ble Justices stated that, “a suit simpliciter for injunction may not be maintainable as the title of the property of the plaintiff/respondent was disputed by the appellants/defendants. In such a situation it was required for the respondent/plaintiff to prove the title of the property while praying for injunction.

“When five different suits were filed by different persons while filing the documents with the paper book filed in this Court, it was incumbent upon the appellants to place on record correct copies of the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court for each of the case.”

 

BRIEF FACTS:

A civil suit was filed to resolve a disagreement over the ownership and possession of a parcel of land. The petitioners claimed to have bought the land from the village Panchayat in 1959 and requested a perpetual injunction as well as ownership of the land. The appellants, however, claimed that the land was government property designated for cattle grazing. The First Appellate Court overturned the Trial Court’s ruling and decreed the suit in favour of the respondents. The High Court upheld the appellate court’s decision, noting that evidence supported the respondents’ ownership claim and entitlement to a permanent injunction. As a result, this appeal is being made.

 

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

After carefully analysing the evidence, the court determined that the respondents had failed to prove the document on the basis of which they claimed a right of possession of the property in question, and that nothing on record demonstrated that the due process required for leasing out/selling the land in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs by private negotiation was followed. The village Panchayat, from whom the land was taken, was not joined as a party to admit or deny the allegations made by the respondents in the plaint.

Respondents contend that document was over 30 years old, there was a presumption of truth under Section 90 of the Evidence Act. The court held that if a document is more than 30 years old and is produced from proper custody, a presumption exists that the signatures and every other part of such document that purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person are in that person’s handwriting, and that if a document is executed or attested, it was executed and attested by the persons by whom it asserts to be executed and attested. This does not imply a presumption that the recitals are correct.

The First Appellate Court’s and the High Court’s judgements and decrees were overturned, and the Trial Court’s order was restored.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement