#Constitutional Equality

The Chhattisgarh High Court struck down a 2014 forest-department circular that put transferred forest guards at the bottom of seniority lists, holding that statutory recruitment rules and constitutional equality cannot be overridden by executive orders. The ruling safeguards seniority rights of forest service staff.

Karnataka High Court rules that hereditary temple servants (Sannidhi Paricharaka) cannot be barred from performing religious duties due to non-contagious vitiligo, reinforcing constitutional equality under Article 14. The court permits regulated delegation of duties while prohibiting discrimination based on medical conditions unrelated to ritual competence.

The Supreme Court has ruled that excluding married daughters from the definition of 'family' for compassionate allotment of fair price shops violates constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination. The judgment mandates that dependency and residence, not marital status, must determine eligibility - empowering millions of women who sustain households after a dealer's death, regardless of marriage.

Supreme Court rules that offering contractual appointments for regular vacancies without justified reasoning violates constitutional guarantees of equality and public employment. The appellant is entitled to regular appointment with seniority and benefits from the initial appointment date, reinforcing the principle of non-arbitrariness in public employment.

Allahabad High Court holds that excluding married daughters from compassionate appointment violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, striking down discriminatory service rules. The ruling mandates equal treatment for all dependents, irrespective of marital status, setting a precedent for gender equality in public employment.

Patna High Court rules that teachers appointed belatedly under the same recruitment panel as earlier appointees must receive notional seniority and equal service benefits, including increments and promotions. The judgment reinforces constitutional equality in public employment, mandating the State to adjudicate claims within strict timelines to prevent arbitrariness.

The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that the State's failure to formulate a clear policy on reckoning pre-absorption service of Shikshakarmis for pension violates Articles 14 and 16, as pension is deferred compensation. The court directed the State to include such service in pension calculations, ensuring constitutional equality and fairness for retired employees.

Bombay HC Nagpur Bench directs Maharashtra to consider OCI cardholders who acquired status before 4 March 2021 for general category seats in B.V.Sc. & A.H. admissions, aligning with the Supreme Court's ruling in Anushka Rengunthwar. The decision reinforces constitutional equality in admission policies, impacting OCI applicants statewide.

The Jharkhand High Court struck down any claim to state land based solely on prior political office, ruling that such preferential treatment violates constitutional equality. This sets a critical precedent for public resource allocation, ensuring that land grants must follow objective, non-discriminatory criteria-not personal influence or status.

An OBC candidate selected on merit in the unreserved category without a valid caste certificate must be treated as a general category candidate, with full salary arrears and seniority from the date of appointment. This ruling reinforces that merit overrides procedural caste classification when selection occurs in open competition, setting a precedent for equitable treatment in public employment.

MP High Court affirms that permanently classified employees are entitled to the same pay revisions as regular government employees under the 7th Pay Commission, effective from January 1, 2016. The ruling reinforces constitutional equality in government employment, mandating pay parity for similarly situated employees.

Patna High Court rules that reserved category candidates who qualify on merit must be granted their preferred postings, even if allocated against general category vacancies. The judgment reinforces that constitutional principles under Articles 14 and 16 require adherence to merit-cum-preference, ensuring equitable treatment in public recruitment.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that barring degree-holding pharmacists from Grade-II recruitment violates the constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity in public employment. This decision mandates immediate revision of recruitment rules to include B.Pharm and M.Pharm candidates, setting a precedent for merit-based inclusion across state health services.

Himachal Pradesh High Court rules that altering reservation category after the application deadline undermines the sanctity of the recruitment process, even if an OBC certificate is obtained later. The judgment reinforces that public employment selections must adhere to declared criteria at the time of application, protecting merit and procedural fairness.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh holds that altering recruitment criteria mid-process without notification violates Articles 14 and 16, invalidating selections ab initio.