CA No.2813 OF 2017 tilted Chander Mohan Negi & Ors. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors dated April 17, 2020 held
The Division Bench has allowed the Letters Patent Appeals on various grounds, viz.:
  • Though the appointments were made during the year 2001 and 2003, writ petitions were filed belatedly in the year 2012 and 2013 and the writ petitioners in C.W.P.No.3303 of 2012 were not even qualified when the appointments were made;
  • No one has questioned the selection of teachers under the Schemes at the relevant point of time, writ petitions were filed after 11 years of their appointment and the writ petitioners have not filed any rejoinder controverting the plea of the State as stated in para 11 of the reply filed in the writ petition and the State had made such appointments by framing the policies when the qualified teachers were not available for making appointments, such appointments made under various schemes cannot be termed as illegal;
  • In view of the long service rendered by them it is always open for the State to regularise their services;
  • State has sufficiently explained giving the background of such appointments of the teachers in various categories and the material placed by the State disclosed that a large number of posts were vacant in the cadres of TGTs, C&Vs, PTAs etc.;
  • A large number of vacancies are still available as the writ petitioners have claimed interest such pleas cannot be entertained to treat the writ petitions as the public interest litigation and the appointees are not even made party respondents, and no material is placed to show that all the appointees are members of the Association which was impleaded as the third respondent in the writ petition etc

Petitioner relied upon following judgments J & K Public Service Commission & Ors. v. Dr. Narinder Mohan & Ors, ; Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors., ; Accounts Officer (A&I) A.P.SRTC & Ors. v. P. Chandra Sekhara Rao & Ors. and Punjab State Warehousing Corpn., Chandigarh v. Manmohan Singh & Anr.

It is true that in the initial schemes notified by the Government there was a condition that such appointees should not seek regularisation/absorption but at the same time for no fault of them, they cannot be denied regularisation/absorption. It is in view of the requirement of the State, their services were extended from time to time and now all the appointees have completed more than 15 years of service. For majority of the appointed teachers under the various schemes benefit was already extended and some left over candidates were denied on account of interim orders passed by this Court

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Registered Document is presumed to be valid unless otherwise proved

 https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/29674/29674_2019_34_1501_24672_Judgement_16-Nov-2020.pdf Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal and Ors. 8 (2006) 5 SCC 353 The relevant portion of the said decision reads as below: “27.  There   is   a   presumption   that   a   registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of  proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption.  In Aloka Bose v. Parmatma Devi and Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 582 "It has b...
Read more

Whether is was any reason explained to pass the order by authority

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf The matter was reminded back with an opportunity to the State to provide reasons for the administrative decision taken to rescind the policy  The authority has choice to explained the reasons or pass the fresh order on the fresh cause of action with explained reasons. There cannot be post hoc justification of the action. The post hoc justification doctrine merely requires that courts assess agency action based on the official explanations of the agency decision makers, and not based on after-the-fact explanations advanced by agency lawyers during litigation. As the D. C. Circuit has explained, the post hoc justification doctrine “is not a time barrier which freezes an agency’s exercise of its judgment after an initial decision has been made and bars it from further articulation of its reasoning. It is a rule directed at reviewing courts which forbids judges to uphold agency action on the basis of rationales offered by anyo...
Read more

Registration of Court Decree Mandatory or not

CA No.6835/2009 Titled Gurcharan Singh & Ors v/s Angrez Kaur & Ans dated 19.03.2020 held Bhoop Singh Vs. Ram Singh Major and Others, (1995) 5 SCC 709. In Bhoop Singh (supra), this Court laid down following in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18:- “16. We have to view the reach of clause (vi), which is an exception to sub-section (1), bearing all the aforesaid in mind. We would think that the exception en grafted is meant to cover that decree or order of a court, including a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise, which declares the pre-existing right and does not by itself create new right, title or interest in praesenti in immovable property of the value of Rs 100 or upwards. Any other view would find the mischief of avoidance of registration, which requires payment of stamp duty, embedded in the decree or order. 17. It would, therefore, be the duty of the court to examine in each case whether the parties have pre-existing right to the immovable property, or whe...
Read more