#Equal Protection

Rajasthan High Court rules that recovery of a weapon alone cannot justify continued detention when all eye-witnesses turn hostile and co-accused have been released. The ruling reinforces parity in bail decisions under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, limiting denial of liberty based solely on circumstantial evidence.

The Kerala High Court ruled that when no protected office attendant is available for a vacancy, the government cannot require prior permission from the Deputy Director of Education to appoint a non-protected candidate. This clarifies that existing government directives override procedural overreach, ensuring timely staffing in public schools and protecting candidates from arbitrary delays in public employment.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that denying regularization to a petitioner while granting it to a similarly situated employee violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under Article 14. The decision binds authorities to extend identical benefits-including retrospective pay and seniority-to all employees in identical circumstances, reinforcing that administrative discretion cannot override the principle of non-discrimination in service matters.

Supreme Court rules that once a state adopts a regularization policy for long-serving workers, it cannot exclude others in identical circumstances without violating constitutional equality. The judgment reinforces that administrative discretion must align with legitimate expectation and non-arbitrariness under service law.

Allahabad HC rules that prolonged pre-trial detention without framing of charges is unconstitutional under Article 21, granting bail to an accused in an exam fraud case after 3.5 years in custody. The judgment underscores that detention must serve trial availability, not punitive purposes, setting a precedent for bail in cases of procedural delays.

Karnataka High Court rules that denial of anticipatory bail is unjustified when co-accused are granted regular bail for similar allegations, emphasizing equal protection under bail jurisprudence. The decision underscores that gravity of offence alone cannot override the parity principle, especially in non-grave cases like assault with slippers.

Central Administrative Tribunal rules that IGNOU B.Tech degrees obtained before 2010 qualify government engineers for promotion to Executive Engineer, rejecting arbitrary disqualification based on distance education. The judgment reinforces equal protection in employment advancement and sets a precedent for recognizing UGC-recognized distance degrees in service law.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed authorities to reconsider contract teacher appointment claims by applying a prior coordinate bench ruling, ensuring parity for petitioners with identical eligibility. This sets a critical precedent for administrative bodies to honor binding precedents from co-equal benches, reinforcing equal protection under service law and preventing arbitrary rejections based on procedural technicalities.

The J&K and Ladakh High Court ruled that seasonal labourers cannot claim automatic parity with regularized workers under Article 14 unless their duty profiles, seniority, and administrative circumstances are identical. The judgment underscores that equal protection does not mandate uniform treatment without a rational basis, affecting employment policies for temporary workforce engagements.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that daily wage workers employed as of 01.09.2016 with over 10 years of service are entitled to permanent status ('Sthai Karmi') under the Viniyamitikaran Scheme. The judgment reinforces equal protection for long-serving workers, setting aside arbitrary dismissals and ensuring consequential benefits like arrears and seniority.

Government employees promoted to gazetted posts are entitled to all financial and service benefits from the date they actually assumed charge, not the notification date. The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that granting benefits retroactively from a notional date while others received them from actual posting dates violates Article 14, setting a critical precedent for equitable treatment in public service promotions.

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.

Rajasthan High Court rules that candidates appointed through the same recruitment process must receive identical annual grade increments, regardless of delayed joining after 30.06.2017. The judgment directs correction of discriminatory pay practices, ensuring administrative equity under the Rajasthan Civil Services Pay Rules.

Tripura High Court ruled that an OBC candidate who secures higher marks than general category candidates cannot be denied appointment to unreserved posts merely due to availing reservation benefits. The court emphasized that merit must prevail, and selection authorities must disclose cut-off marks to ensure transparency and equal protection under service law.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that when identical notices to co-operative society employees have already been set aside by the Registrar on merit, denying a similar petitioner relief on limitation grounds violates equal protection and natural justice. This mandates the Registrar to adjudicate such grievances on substance, not procedure, reinforcing administrative fairness for all similarly situated members.