Digi - Legal Insights

Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited and unless punishment shocks conscience, it is upheld thus, given proven charges against Petitioner, dismissal imposed is deemed appropriate and justified.

School administration is governed by specific laws and Petitioner has not demonstrated any procedural illegality by School Management hence, no writ can be issued to appoint an administrator and case does not warrant exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution.

Respondent was rightfully entitled to provisional pension until final disciplinary decision is made.

Respondent-Authorities directed to follow G.R. for deployment of female and male teachers who have crossed age of 53 years and such teachers should not be deployed in the difficult areas as far as practicable.

Petitioner will have to be issued an appointment letter to post of Junior Engineer (Civil) by Public Works Department, effective from same date as other candidates in recruitment process, with all consequential benefits.

Respondent No. 2 is directed to substitute name of Petitioner No. 2 in place of Petitioner No. 1 for purpose of compassionate appointment and if at all, there would a suitable vacancy available, Respondent No. 2 shall proceed to consider case of Petitioner No. 2 accordingly.

Disciplinary authority cannot initiate second inquiry without addressing previously submitted inquiry report, as mandated by Rule 9 of Rules and if dissatisfied with earlier report, authority must either remit it for further inquiry or record its reasons for disagreement, allowing petitioner to respond.

Petitioner is to be reinstated immediately, receiving all promotions and benefits due, with a mandate for Respondents to expedite her case within four months.

Impugned letters, which rejected Petitioners appointment to post, are contrary to law and should be quashed.

Charges against Petitioner were not sufficiently proven and ruled that previous penalties were excessive hence, impugned order passed by Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Order passed by Appellate Authority are quashed.

Petitioner is declared entitled to be considered for appointment to vacant aided post of Assistant Teacher for subject “Ardhamagadhi” in Respondent no.3 institution.

Petitioner is declared entitled to be considered for appointment to vacant aided post of Assistant Teacher for subject “Ardhamagadhi” in Respondent no.3 institution.

Respondent No.1s appointments were strictly temporary for academic years 2001–2002 and 2002–2003, negating any claims of deemed probation or promotion.

Respondent-Zilla Parishad is directed to include name of Petitioner in list of persons to be appointed on compassionate ground, if he is otherwise eligible.

Advertisement did not authorize authorities to apply weightage to exam scores that could disadvantage some candidates hence, Petitioners selected and appointment orders issued to them in terms of advertisement as they have secured total marks more than Respondents.

Petitioner is deemed to hold sufficient documentation proving her residency in village Padoshi hence, Respondents authorities shall appoint Petitioner on subject matter post of Anganwadi Madatnis.

Completion of an apprenticeship does not automatically lead to preferential treatment in recruitment, as all candidates must meet employers selection criteria for permanent positions.

Order of Dismissal from Service passed by Respondent No.2-Deputy Inspector General (Pers) is quashed and set aside however, liberty granted to Respondent-Department to hold de novo inquiry on Charge Article (II) and (III) if so they desire.

Proposals for appointment approvals, transfers, promotions, grant-in-aid vacancies, or inclusion in Shalarth system must be decided within 60 days of submission.

Court emphasizes need for competent authority to properly evaluate documents and make a determination on matter, leading to decision for remand for reconsideration.