Back
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI
Dewesh Kumar Mishra, son of late. Shitikanth Nath Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.)
1) This matter has been listed under the heading for orders with defect. It is evident from the office note that altogether five defects have been pointed out.
2) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that so far as defect nos.1 and 4 are concerned, they are relating to serving copy of the writ petition to respondent No.6 and certifying the annexures to be true copies respectively, which he will be doing in course of the day.
3) Let it be done in course of the day. The said defects stand removed for the present.
4) Defect Nos.2 and 3 are with respect to filing of fresh copies/typed copies of the relevant documents. We have gone through the relevant documents and considering the same to be legible, the defects relating to filing of fresh copies/typed copies are hereby ignored.
5) So far as the defect no.5 pertaining to deficit court-fee is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the issue with respect to the same has already been considered by this Court while passing order dated 19.12.2022 in I.A. No.9194 of 2022 arising out of W.P. (S) No. 3437 of 2019 along with other batch cases including W.P
The court upheld the principle of judicial consistency by disposing of the writ petition in accordance with a prior judgment regarding the regularization of Para Teachers.
Long service on a contractual basis does not confer a right to regularization or equal pay as per established legal principles.
No judicial mandamus for blanket regularization of scheme para-teachers into cadre posts contrary to Art.309 rules reserving 50% quota; State directed to periodically notify/fill earmarked vacancies ....
The court ruled that the termination of ad hoc teachers' services based on the Government Order was unjust and mandated fresh consideration of their regularization claims under the relevant statutory....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to regularization after completing ten years of service on sanctioned and vacant posts, as supported by constitutional....
Equal treatment in employment is required under Articles 14 and 16, necessitating fair regularization processes for all similarly situated individuals.
Long continuous service and rectification of initial irregularities justify the regularization of employees appointed on an ad-hoc basis, as per established legal principles.
Irregular appointments made by competent authorities can be regularized if employees have served for over ten years, emphasizing the need for pragmatic interpretation of rules.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
