Case Law
Subject : Service Law - Employment
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by an employee challenging her termination for ineligibility due to having more than two children, as per the recruitment advertisement's conditions. Justice Sanjay K.Agrawal , presiding over the case, ruled that no departmental inquiry was necessary as the termination was based on ineligibility, not misconduct.
Tamin Bai
Initially,
Petitioner's Counsel
argued that the termination order was stigmatic and implied misconduct. They contended that a departmental inquiry was mandatory before termination, citing the Supreme Court's decision in
State Counsel
countered that the enquiry was solely to verify eligibility based on the advertisement's criteria. They maintained that the termination was due to ineligibility and not based on any misconduct. They argued that the
Justice
The court observed that the enquiry committee’s report, which confirmed
Referring to
State of Rajasthan v. Kulwant Kaur
, the court reiterated that possessing essential qualifications is a prerequisite for holding a post. Since
> "For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner did not fulfill eligibility criteria for the post of AG-III as per clause 6(4)(ख) of the advertisement as at the time of appointment, she was having more than three children and all have born after 26.01.2001 and also the fact of adoption of her elder daughter has not been established in accordance with law. Therefore, respondent No.3 has rightly terminated the services of the petitioner by accepting the enquiry report dated 28.02.2015 (Annexure R/3) which, in my considered opinion, is correct finding of fact based on material available on the record and which is neither perverse nor contrary to the records."
Ultimately, Justice
#ServiceLaw #EmploymentLaw #EligibilityCriteria #ChhattisgarhHighCourt
Stranger Directly Affected by Interim Order Entitled to Impleadment in Writ Proceedings: Supreme Court
10 Apr 2026
Dismissal from BSF Valid Without Security Force Court Trial if Inexpedient Due to Civilians Involved: Calcutta HC
10 Apr 2026
Limitation Under Section 468 CrPC Runs From FIR Filing Date, Not Cognizance: Supreme Court
10 Apr 2026
Higher DA Enhancement for Serving Employees Than DR for Pensioners Violates Article 14: Supreme Court
11 Apr 2026
Broad Daylight Murder of Senior Lawyer in Mirzapur
11 Apr 2026
SC Justice Amanullah: Don't Blame Judges for Pendency
11 Apr 2026
Varanasi Court Seeks Police Report on Kishwar Defamation
11 Apr 2026
Advocate Cannot Stall Execution Over Unpaid Fees or Blackmail Client: Kerala High Court Imposes ₹50K Costs
11 Apr 2026
Supreme Court Slams MP, Rajasthan Over Illegal Sand Mining
14 Apr 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.