“Antar Gramin Sadak Nirman Yojana” — Employees appointed under the “Antar Gramin Sadak Nirman Yojana” are entitled to pensionary benefits if the service rules applicable to equivalent posts in the Cane Development Department have been extended to them by government decisions

 “Antar Gramin Sadak Nirman Yojana” — Employees appointed under the “Antar Gramin Sadak Nirman Yojana” are entitled to pensionary benefits if the service rules applicable to equivalent posts in the Cane Development Department have been extended to them by government decisions —Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh, affirming the High Court's decision that respondents appointed under the "Antar Gramin Sadak Nirman Yojana" between 1969 and 1982 are entitled to pensionary benefits — The Court reasoned that government decisions had extended the service rules of the Cane Development Department to these employees, entitling them to similar benefits as permanent government employees, consistent with the Court's earlier judgment in the Vinod Kumar Goel case — The Court rejected arguments regarding delay and the respondents' prior acceptance of Contributory Provident Fund benefits, noting that their claim for pension was raised early and they were willing to deposit the withdrawn amount — The arrears of pension were, however, restricted to three years prior to the filing of the Writ Petition.

Supreme Court allowed an appeal by candidates holding Master's degrees in Microbiology and Food Science and Technology who were disqualified for the post of Food Safety Officer by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission

 Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 — Section 37 — Food Safety and Standard Rules, 2011 — Rule 2.1.3 — Qualifications for Food Safety Officers — A recruitment notification specifying "a degree" in certain science subjects for the post of Food Safety Officer encompasses postgraduate degrees in those subjects unless explicitly excluded by the relevant statutory rules prescribed by the Central Government — Supreme Court allowed an appeal by candidates holding Master's degrees in Microbiology and Food Science and Technology who were disqualified for the post of Food Safety Officer by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission — The Court held that the term "degree" in the recruitment advertisement and the Rules, 2011, includes postgraduate degrees in the listed science subjects (Food Technology, Dairy Technology, Biotechnology, Oil Technology, Agriculture Science, Veterinary Sciences, Biochemistry, Microbiology), noting that the specific mention of a Master's degree in Chemistry sets the minimum qualification for that subject — The Court emphasized that the Central Government has the exclusive power to prescribe qualifications for FSOs under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and that holding a higher degree in a relevant subject does not disqualify a candidate — The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the respondents to allow the appellants to participate in the interview process.

Candidates Can't Be Rejected Solely Because They Had Higher Degrees Than Prescribed Qualification

 The word 'Degree' can mean means 'Bachelor's Degree', 'Master's Degree' or 'Doctorate Degree',

The Supreme Court observed that a candidate possessing a higher degree of qualification cannot be rejected solely because a lower degree of qualification is required for a particular post.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the case where the Appellants, who are post-graduates in Microbiology, Food Science, and Technology, and applied for the post of Food Safety Officer (“FSO”) were disqualified during the recruitment process on the grounds that their qualifications did not meet the criteria specified in the advertisement.

The appellants challenged their disqualification before the Jharkhand High Court. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court ruled against the appellants, holding that the advertisement required a Bachelor's degree in the specified subjects and that a Master's degree in Microbiology or Food Science did not qualify. The recruitment advertisement mentioned that the candidate having a master's degree in relevant subjects (other than Chemistry) would be excluded from the selection process.

“The term 'degree' is defined under Section 22(3) the UGC Act, which states that the 'degree' means the 'Bachelor's Degree', 'Master's Degree' and the 'Doctorate Degree'. Thus, wherever the word 'degree' is used, unless a specific exclusion is provided, the same would include within its scope and ambit all three, 'Bachelor's Degree', 'Master's Degree' and a 'Doctorate Degree'.”, 

“we have no hesitation in concluding that if a candidate, having undertaken a degree course in “Chemistry” subject, desires to apply for the post of FSO, he must possess a master's degree in that subject. However, if a candidate has taken college education in the subjects of food technology; dairy technology; biotechnology; oil technology; agricultural science; veterinary science; biochemistry or microbiology, then such a candidate would be qualified for the FSO post, if he holds any one of the degrees, i.e., either graduation, post-graduation or doctorate degree in any of these subjects. There is no logic or rationale behind excluding the candidates having master's or a doctorate degree in these subjects from staking a claim to the post of FSO because such an interpretation would be totally unjust, arbitrary and unconstitutional.”, 

CHANDRA SHEKHAR SINGH AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS

When Selection Is Based Entirely On Interview Marks, It's Reasonable To Presume Existence Of Arbitrariness & Favouritism

 

The Court opined that it was desirable to have a selection process based on a written exam and rules.

The Supreme Court recently upheld the 2016 decision of the then BJP government of Assam to cancel a select list for the recruitment process of 104 Constables in the Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPF) notified in 2014 by the then Indian National Congress government.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan found that the cancellation was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate, given the anomalies in the recruitment process identified by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, including skewed district representation and reservation policy violations.

The Court further highlighted that the recruitment was based on interviews without any written exam and was not governed by any Rules.

“Last but not the least, having regard to present times when corruption has been held to be a walk of life by certain responsible citizens of the country, it would have been desirable if the process of recruitment of 104 Constables were conducted after framing of recruitment rules and also prescribing a written examination to keep the process absolutely above board”, the Court observed.

The Court observed –

“the Government itself felt that the selection being entirely based on interview, the same admitted an element of arbitrariness and that the assessment of candidates being based merely on the basis of marks at the interview, was reasonable for drawing a presumption of being misused for favouritism and could well be regarded as suffering from the vice of arbitrariness. In such circumstances, it is indeed difficult, if not impossible, for a court to law to substitute its decision for the one taken by the Government reasoning that the selection has not been challenged by any unsuccessful candidate.”

State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors.

Contention that prior to the amendment rules, the promotion to the cadre of District Judges was based on the principle of "Seniority-cum-merit" and now as per amended rules pursuant to the directions of Supreme Court, the principle has now been changed to "merit-cum-seniority" and this has seriously affected the rights of the members of the Civil Judges (Senior Division)--Contention rejected

sclaw.in

Service Law—Appointment—Judicial Officer—Acquittal in criminal case involving moral turpitude cannot be a ground to deny appointment.

sclaw.in

Re-assessment--Police Training--Deficiency, if any, in not allotting proper marks by authorities cannot deprive them of the benefit which they have already obtained.

sclaw.in

Family Pension--Dependents of the deceased ad hoc appointees are not entitled to grant of 'family pension' in terms of the provisions of Punjab Civil Services Rules.

sclaw.in

The respondent-writ petitioner as an Officer of the Bank is bound by the salary structure approved by the Bank for its Officers. The decision of the Standing Committee is a part of the decision-making in respect of salary payable to the employees of the Banks. The employee of a Bank has no right that he should be associated with the decision-making process in respect of the fixation of salary. However, if the question of reasonableness of salary arises, then in exercise of power of judicial review, the Court may examine the decision-making process.

sclaw.in

Seniority--Principle of "continuous length of service" i.e. date of appointment should be applied for determining the inter se seniority of the officers of Delhi Higher Judicial Service.

sclaw.in

Appointment--An ad hoc appointee appointed for a period of three months as Stenographer, whose term is further extended, should not be allowed to continue in the public interest when he failed in the test.

sclaw.in

Pay parity--Senior cannot be paid lesser salary than his juniors--Writ--When writ petition is jointly filed, the prayer therein should not be confined to one petitioner alone only.

sclaw.in

Appointment of Judge--Once the Government on being satisfied that a suitable candidate who was earlier appointed as an Additional Judge is suitable for appointment as a permanent Judge, the elaborate consultation has not been considered necessary--Chief Justice of High Court not required to consult collegium of High Court.

sclaw.in

Service Law—Teaching Experience—Study Leave—Period of study leave cannot be counted towards teaching experience

sclaw.in

Service Law—Higher Qualification—Possession of higher qualification does not always mean that candidate has requisite prescribed lower qualification for the post Service Law—Qualification—It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications

sclaw.in

Unified Cadre--Shetty commission recommendation to bring about uniformity in hierarchy, designation and jurisdiction of officers both on civil and criminal sides--There was no specific direction to integrate into a single unified cadre.

sclaw.in

Service and Labour Law--Absence without leave--Dismissal from service--Misconduct--Proportionality of punishment--Appellant claimed that punishment of termination is disproportionate to gravity of offence charged--No mitigating circumstances could be shown--Similar offence committed earlier--Punishment of simplicitor dismissed not disproportionate to gravity of offence--Appeal dismissed

sclaw.in

Service Law—Penalty—Judicial Review—The imposition of a penalty in disciplinary proceeding lies in the sole domain of the employer—Unless the penalty is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges which are proved, the element of discretion which is attributed to the employer cannot be interfered with.

sclaw.in

Service Law—Annual Confidential Report—Uncommunicated adverse ACRs cannot be relied upon for the purpose of consideration of promotion.

sclaw.in

Service Law—Past Service—Seniority—Inter-Company transfer on personal request—The service rendered by him in old company can be and ought to be taken into account for all other purposes, other than for determination of his seniority in the new company

sclaw.in