Topic
Bombay High Court rules that teachers must possess TET/CTET qualification on the date of promotion process initiation, not earlier cut-off dates. The judgment quashes the state's communication, impacting seniority lists and promotion eligibility for thousands of teachers in Maharashtra.
Andhra Pradesh High Court rules that promotional appointments made in contravention of statutory service rules are void from inception, even if directed by a court order. The judgment mandates strict adherence to eligibility criteria, setting aside seniority lists and remanding cases for fresh consideration, reinforcing constitutional safeguards under Article 14.
Karnataka High Court invokes Article 226 to enforce a strict 4-month timeline for finalizing the seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineers, emphasizing that arbitrary delays by public employers violate constitutional rights. The ruling mandates promotions based on merit-cum-seniority, setting a precedent for government employees facing similar procedural lapses.
Allahabad HC rules that oral termination of employment cannot invalidate service continuity for regularization under U.P. Regularization Rules, 2001. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to seniority and consequential benefits if service continuity is established, overriding the cut-off date requirement.
Jharkhand HC held that withholding examination marks after imposing departmental punishment and allowing reappearance constitutes double jeopardy, violating Police Order No. 238/93 and Article 14. The petitioner is entitled to marks and seniority list correction, ensuring fair assessment in service matters.
Chhattisgarh High Court holds that seniority disputes in service matters cannot be reopened after nearly a decade, affirming settled rights and administrative stability.
Uttarakhand High Court holds that undue delay in challenging seniority lists invokes laches, barring relief even if substantive rights exist. Key precedent from Trilokchand Motichand applied.