#LegalPost Archives - Page 4 of 9

29 Nov

Director told to look into the claim regarding the appointment as Panchayat Teacher: Patna High Court

Prime Legal

Blog #HighCourt, #judgment, #law, #LegalPost

Citation: CWJC No.2821 of 2019

Decided on: 31-10-2023

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha

Introduction :

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that husband of the petitioner died in harness on 15.02.2014 while he was working as Class-IV employee in High School, Fatehpur, Patna. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground 04.08.2015 before the Headmaster of Rajkiyakrit Chhatriya Uchch Vidyalaya, Fatehpur, Patna.

Facts:

The District Programme Office (Establishment), Patna, vide letter dated 04.09.2015, replied to the Headmaster that in view of the Government letter dated 22.06.2009, the appointment on compassionate ground of the petitioner cannot be acted upon since intermediate qualification is essential for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher/ Prakhand Teacher and therefore, the case of the petitioner could not be considered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the order dated 29.02.2019 passed in this case, submits that a categorical statement was made by the petitioner that she is willing to be appointed on Class-IV post. He also relied upon an order dated 03.03.2020, passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. no. 1065 of 2017 and other analogous cases to submit that the Education Department constituted Four Member High Power Committee and the Committee, after due deliberation, submitted recommendations vide Memo no. 1275 dated 26.09.2019 that the case of the dependent shall be considered for appointment on Class-III and Class-IV post, if they do not fulfill the eligibility condition for appointment as Panchayat Teacher.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna is directed to take proper decision with regard to the claim of the petitioner for appointment on Class-IV post in light of recommendation of the High Power Committee, as contained in Memo no. 1275 dated 26.09.2019, within a maximum period of four months. With that the writ petition is disposed.

“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 : Sushant Kumar Sharma

click here to view judgement

29 Nov

Balancing Equity and Fairness: Court Quashes Harsh Penalty, Directs Reconsideration in Landmark Decision: Rajasthan High Court

Prime Legal

Blog #HighCourt, #judgement, #law, #LegalPost

Title: Shashi Bala Meena vs Punjab National Bank

Citation: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7612/2015

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Decided on: 24/05/23

Introduction:

The petitioner has filed an instant petition seeking the court’s acceptance and allowance of the writ petition. The prayer includes a request for the court to quash and set aside certain orders, reinstate the petitioner in service with consequential benefits and interest, and any other order deemed fit by the Hon’ble Court. Additionally, the petitioner seeks the award of costs in their favor.

Facts:

The petitioner, a Senior Manager at a bank, faced multiple transfers during her service and was granted three promotions with an unblemished record. Following a transfer to Alwar Branch, she sought retention due to family circumstances. Despite requests and applications for medical leave, the petitioner was relieved to join Alwar Branch. Subsequently, an expedited enquiry was initiated, and the petitioner, suffering from Arthritis, was compelled to join. The enquiry concluded swiftly, resulting in an order of compulsory retirement. The petitioner alleges a hasty and unfair process, citing medical conditions and unavailed privilege leave. The respondents argue willful absence and alternative remedies. The court emphasizes an employee’s duty to obey transfer orders but acknowledges the need for proportionality in disciplinary action, highlighting the recognized doctrine of proportionality in judicial review.

Judgement analysis:

The court, invoking the principle of rendering equitable justice, acknowledges the need for compelling circumstances to interfere with a penalty’s quantum. Emphasizing fair play in administrative decisions, the judgment considers the impact on both the employee and management, recognizing the gravity of imposing punishment affecting livelihoods. In light of the petitioner’s 25 years of unblemished service, unavailed privilege leaves, and the circumstances surrounding her transfer and subsequent compulsory retirement, the court deems the punishment harsh. It rejects cited judgments as inapplicable to this case.

Applying the doctrine of proportionality, the court quashes the impugned orders and remits the matter for reconsideration of the punishment within three months. While allowing the petition in part, the court directs the petitioner’s reinstatement without back wages from the date of compulsory retirement.

The judgment places the onus on the appropriate authority to reassess the penalty, emphasizing a balanced approach that considers the specific circumstances of the case. The decision reflects a nuanced understanding of administrative decisions affecting individuals’ livelihoods.

Written By: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

28 Nov

Rajasthan High Court: Court Upholds Candidate’s Right to Marks, Orders Immediate Appointment with Full Benefits

Prime Legal

Blog #judgement, #law, #LegalPost, #rights

Title: Sita Ram Jakhar vs State of Rajasthan

Citation: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17796/ 2022

Coram: Justice Sudesh Bansal

Decided on: 14/03/2023.

Introduction:

The case revolves around the recruitment process initiated by the Directorate, Home Defence, Rajasthan, through an advertisement dated 18.11.2021. The recruitment is for various posts, including Constable General, Constable Bigular, Constable Drumman, and Constable Driver in different districts. The matter is under consideration by the court, with both parties presenting their arguments, and the court has examined the available material on record.

Facts:

The petitioner applied for the post of Constable General in the Rajasthan Home Guard Subordinate Service and claimed entitlement to 5 marks for a computer aptitude certificate (RS-CIT). Although he possessed the certificate, the petitioner alleged that he was not awarded the marks during the selection process, resulting in his exclusion from the final merit list.

In response to the writ petition, the respondents argued that the petitioner failed to produce the RS-CIT certificate during the document’s verification stage. The court, acknowledging the unique circumstances, allowed the petitioner to undergo a fresh document verification process. Subsequently, the Selection Board examined the RS-CIT certificate on January 12, 2023, and provisionally awarded 5 marks to the petitioner. The Board concluded that the addition of these marks placed the petitioner above the last cutoff marks in the OBC (NCL) category, making him eligible for inclusion in the final selection list.

The respondents, in their reply, mentioned that the results had already been declared, and candidates from the final merit list had received appointments. However, during the court proceedings, a representative of the Rajasthan Home Guard Service acknowledged that there was an opportunity to consider the petitioner for appointment.

The court, considering the petitioner’s eligibility for the marks and the peculiar circumstances, referred to a recent Supreme Court judgment (Food Corporation of India Vs. Rimjhim) to address the issue. The judgment discussed the importance of considering a candidate’s eligibility despite procedural lapses, emphasizing the essence of justice in such matters.

Judgement analysis:

The court, applying the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court, acknowledged that the petitioner possessed the necessary computer aptitude qualification (RS-CIT) and was eligible for 5 marks. The court considered the proceedings of the Selection Board, which confirmed the petitioner’s eligibility and awarded him the additional marks. The court concluded that the petitioner, with the extra marks, surpassed the last cutoff in the final merit list for the Constable General Non-TSP post in the OBC (NCL) category.

As a result, the court directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the vacant Constable General Non-TSP position in the OBC (NCL) category immediately. The petitioner was granted all service benefits, including seniority and increments, notionally from the date of the appointment. Additionally, the petitioner was entitled to actual and monetary benefits from the date of the appointment. The writ petition was allowed accordingly, and all related applications were disposed of.

Written By: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

28 Nov

Justice Prevails: Court Upholds Employee’s Rights, Quashes Unjust Removal, and Ensures Fair Compensation: Rajasthan High Court

Prime Legal

Blog #employeebenifit, #HighCourt, #law, #LegalPost

Title: Badri Ram vs State of Rajasthan

Citation: S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 14681/2019

Coram: Justice Dinesh Mehta

Decided on: 14-03-2023.

Introduction:

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.09.2019, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Headquarters and Traffic, Jodhpur, resulting in the petitioner’s removal from services. In response to this, the petitioner has sought remedy through the writ jurisdiction of the Court.

Facts:

The petitioner applied for the position of Constable (General) in May/June 2018, received an appointment order on 26.09.2018, and joined on 29.09.2018. Subsequently, a complaint was filed against him by his erstwhile wife, leading to his removal from government services on 01.08.2018 under Rule 19(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules. The petitioner argued the order was illegal, lacked notice or hearing, and the criminal case resulted in acquittal. The court found a violation of natural justice, emphasizing the principle of “audi alterem partem.” It ruled in favour of the petitioner, highlighting the absence of justification for dismissal in light of the acquittal and the infringement of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16. The court declared the order illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, emphasizing the petitioner’s acquittal as a crucial factor.

Judgement analysis:

In the given case, the petitioner faced removal from government services based on an FIR filed against him by his wife. The court emphasized the petitioner’s clear acquittal, stating it was not due to compromise but lack of evidence. Drawing a distinction from precedent cases, where convictions and false declarations were crucial, the court ruled in favour of the petitioner, quashing the removal order dated 23.09.2019.

The judgment highlighted that the petitioner had disclosed the FIR during character verification, and the respondents, aware of the situation, allowed him to join. The court ordered the petitioner’s continued service from the joining date (29.09.2018) and directed the respondents to confirm/regularize his service within two years, considering the quashing of the 2019 order. The petitioner was entitled to arrears, with a deadline for payment by 30.09.2023, and granted the right to claim interest if delayed. Additionally, the petitioner could seek the cost of litigation from the respondents, and all pending applications were disposed of.

Written By: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

24 Nov

Judicial Disapproval: Court Slams Deceptive Conduct, Imposes Cost, and Orders Relief Allocation in Writ Petition Controversy

Prime Legal

Blog #judgement, #judicial, #law, #LegalPost

Title: Geeta Devi vs State Of Rajasthan

Citation: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 620/2020

Coram: JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Decided on: 28/03/2023.

Introduction:

The respondent, Municipal Board, Bilara, has filed the current application seeking the recall of the interim order dated 14.01.2020 issued by the court. The nature of the case or the specific circumstances leading to the interim order .

Facts:

In this case, the respondent, Municipal Board, Bilara, has filed an application seeking the recall of an interim order dated 14.01.2020. During the argument, the respondent’s counsel highlighted that the petitioner, along with four others, had previously filed a joint writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13679/2019), which was listed on 13.09.2019. The court notes that a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court had considered the petitioner’s case on that day and issued notices without granting any interim order. The respondent’s counsel argued that on the same day, two other cases challenging the same impugned order were listed, and detailed orders with interim relief were granted. However, in the petitioner’s case, only notices were ordered. The respondent’s counsel further brought to the court’s attention that the petitioner(s) withdrew the earlier writ petition on 10.01.2020 without informing the respondent’s counsel. In response, the petitioner’s counsel argued that there was no concealment, as the petitioner had mentioned the filing and withdrawal of the earlier writ petition in the current application.

To verify the claims, the court examined the records of the earlier writ petitions and found that the petitioner’s case was listed on 13.09.2019, and notices were issued without granting interim relief. The court expressed shock at the petitioner’s actions, noting that after failing to obtain an interim order in the first writ petition, the petitioner withdrew it on the same day she learned about an interim order in another similar case (SBCWP No.15048/2019).

The court criticized the petitioner for not disclosing the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition and filing the current one with the same assertions. It emphasized that withdrawing and filing a fresh writ petition without a material change in circumstances is impermissible in law. The court found that there was no change in facts or pleadings between the two petitions and criticized the petitioner for attempting to mislead the court.

Judgement analysis:

In this judgment, the court expresses strong disapproval of the petitioner’s conduct and her counsel, stating that not only should the interim order be recalled, but the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The court cites an attempt to mislead the court and invokes the principle of res judicata, arguing that the petitioner, by withdrawing and filing a fresh petition without a material change in circumstances, has acted improperly.

The court emphasizes that the petitioner, by misleading the court, has secured an interim order and continued in services for over three years, causing an illegal burden on the public exchequer. As a consequence, the court imposes a cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioner, payable to the respondent Municipal Board, Bilara. The Board is granted the authority to recover this cost from the petitioner’s deducted or deposited amount in accordance with the law. The recovered amount is directed to be utilized by the Board for the construction or renovation of public toilets for females. Furthermore, the court dismisses the writ petition and the stay petition. While expressing displeasure about the conduct of the learned counsel, the court refrains from taking any action against them, expressing hope that they would exercise caution in the future.

Written By: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view full judgement

1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9