#Article 14 violation

Andhra Pradesh High Court holds that failure to conduct periodic inspections of unregistered medical establishments under the APAPMC Act, 2002, amounts to arbitrary inaction violating constitutional rights. The court directs authorities to enforce registration and regulatory compliance, reinforcing state accountability in healthcare oversight.

Andhra Pradesh High Court holds that land assigned to an ex-serviceman under undisputed and genuine circumstances must be deleted from the prohibited properties list under Section 22A of the Registration Act. The court directed authorities to comply within two months, emphasizing the violation of Article 14 due to administrative inaction and fraudulent claims.

Madras High Court strikes down Tamil Nadu Police's range-wise seniority system for promotions, ruling it unconstitutional under Article 14. The court mandates state-wide seniority from enlistment date, prospectively effective from 01.01.2026, and creates 1,216 supernumerary posts to address backlog disparities.

Bombay HC rules that denying trained teachers absorbed after a scheme closure their original status, pay scale, and seniority violates Article 14. The court mandates continuity of service benefits, including arrears, for teachers already qualified under the Rehabilitation Council of India.

Rajasthan High Court holds that an employee serving over 35 years as a casual sweeper is entitled to regularization and consequential benefits, emphasizing substantive justice over procedural technicalities. The ruling mandates consideration of long-term service under Article 14, even where initial appointment was irregular, setting a precedent for similarly situated casual workers.

The J&K High Court ruled that excluding a senior adhoc employee with over two decades of service while regularizing junior staff violates the equality guarantee under Article 14. The repeal of enabling statutes cannot justify such arbitrariness, affirming that legitimate expectation and non-discrimination bind state action even in adhoc appointments.

MP High Court rules that denial of promotion based on uncommunicated Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) violates principles of natural justice. The petitioner is entitled to promotion from the date his junior was promoted, along with consequential benefits, as adverse ACRs must be disclosed before affecting career progression.