Topic

regular appointment

3 articlesLatest June 2026
MEPS Act Section 5(2) | Completion of Probation Grants Deemed Permanency, Entitling Teacher to Transfer to Aided Post: Bombay HC
|Bombay High Court

MEPS Act Section 5(2) | Completion of Probation Grants Deemed Permanency, Entitling Teacher to Transfer to Aided Post: Bombay HC

A teacher who completes two years of probation under the MEPS Act, 1977 acquires deemed permanent status and cannot be denied transfer to an aided post on technical grounds. This ruling affirms that regular status under Section 5(2) is a substantive right, not merely procedural, and protects educators from administrative evasion of statutory entitlements.

RPwD Act Prevails Over State Recruitment Laws | Regular Appointment from Initial Date Mandated for Disabled Employees : HP HC
Case Law Analysis
|Himachal Pradesh High Court

RPwD Act Prevails Over State Recruitment Laws | Regular Appointment from Initial Date Mandated for Disabled Employees : HP HC

Himachal Pradesh High Court invalidated the state recruitment law for violating the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, directing regularization of disabled employees from their original appointment date. The ruling reinforces the supremacy of central disability rights legislation over conflicting state laws, impacting all similarly placed employees.

MP Service Law | Contractual Teachers Entitled to Regular Appointment or Adhyapak Samvarg Benefits Without Fresh Eligibility Test : MP HC Gwalior Follows Kartar Singh & Anil Adiwasi Precedents
Case Law Analysis
|Madhya Pradesh High Court

MP Service Law | Contractual Teachers Entitled to Regular Appointment or Adhyapak Samvarg Benefits Without Fresh Eligibility Test : MP HC Gwalior Follows Kartar Singh & Anil Adiwasi Precedents

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior directed authorities to consider a contractual teacher's claim for regular appointment or Adhyapak Samvarg benefits under the 2008 Rules, without requiring a fresh eligibility test, relying on binding precedents. The ruling mandates consequential benefits within 90 days, reinforcing parity for similarly situated contractual employees under service law.