Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ATUL SREEDHARAN, SIDDHARTH NANDAN
Pratima Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
Dios – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shashank Mishra, Advocate and Sri Anshul Nigam, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The present intra-court appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 09.12.2013 passed in Writ-A No. 47082 of 2000 (Smt. Pratima Chauhan vs. D.I.O.S. & others).
3. Learned Senior Counsel has contended that, in an earlier round of litigation, this Court, vide its judgment dated 02.02.1999 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21353 of 1997 (Smt. Pratima Chauhan & another vs. Regional Deputy Director of Education and others), allowed the said writ petition with a specific direction to the Joint Director of Education, Agra, to accord approval to the ad hoc appointment of the petitioners and to pay salary from the date of joining till the regular selection against the short-term vacancy, or the date of confirmation, or till the post becomes a substantive vacancy, whichever is earlier.
4. The undisputed fact in the present petition is that the petitioners were selected for appointment against a short-term vacancy after the publication of an advertisement. However, no approval was accorded to the prop
The court ruled that retired ad hoc teachers must be considered for regularization under Section 33-G, regardless of their retirement status, emphasizing the importance of full bench rulings.
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 court ruled that employees employed for lengthy periods cannot be denied regularization of service, emphasizing principles of fairness and equality under the Constitution.
The court established that a teacher's continuous absence for five years leads to deemed abandonment of service, allowing for regularisation under specific provisions of the Act.
(1) There is distinction between irregular and illegal appointment.(2) Mere over-ruling of principles by a subsequent judgment will not dilute binding effect of decision on inter-parties.(3) It is no....
Appointments under SRO 384 of 2009 were for a limited period and did not entitle the appointees to preferential claim for regular appointment, and the challenge to the recruitment process through wri....
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
