Supreme Court Annual Digest 2024: Service Law

SERVICE LAWS - SUPREME COURT ANNUAL DIGEST 2024AdministrationConstitution of India - Article 16(1), 16(4) and 335 - Efficiency of Administration - Article 335 does not limit sub-classification; rather, it reinforces the importance of inclusion and equality in public services in line with Article 16(1). State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 538In public law proceedings, when it is realised that the prayer in the writ petition is unattainable due to passage of time, constitutional courts may not dismiss the writ proceedings on the ground of their perceived futility. In the life of litigation, passage of time can stand both as an ally and adversary. Our duty is to transcend the constraints of time and perform the primary duty of a constitutional court to control and regulate the exercise of power or arbitrary action. By taking the first step, the primary purpose and object of public law proceedings will be subserved. (Para 20) Manoj Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 143 : AIR 2024 SC 1265 : (2024) 3 SCC 563While the primary duty of constitutional courts remains the control of power, including setting aside administrative actions that may be illegal or arbitrary, it must be acknowledged that such measures may not singularly address repercussions of abuse of power. It is equally incumbent upon the courts, as a secondary measure, to address the injurious consequences arising from arbitrary and illegal actions. This concomitant duty to take reasonable measures to restitute the injured is our overarching constitutional purpose. This is how we have read our constitutional text, and this is how we have built our precedents on the basis of our preambular objective to secure justice. (Para 19) Manoj Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 143 : AIR 2024 SC 1265 : (2024) 3 SCC 563AgeSupreme Court imposes 1 lakh cost on man for repeated litigations to change birth date in service records. Balbir Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 689Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 (Rajasthan); Rule 13(v) which provides for age relaxation to the persons serving under educational projects is challenged to be discriminatory and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Fixing of minimum and maximum age requirement is a policy decision – There was a valid classification based on intelligible differentia which distinguished applicants with project experience and those who lacked project experience. Further the differentia had a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Rules. Held, the historical background leading to the enactment of the Rules itself provides a justification for granting relaxation to the persons serving under the educational project, if they fulfil the condition that they were within the age limit when they were initially engaged. Hence, relaxation provided for in Rule 13(v) is not arbitrary or unreasonable. (Para 22, 24 & 25) Mahesh Chand Bareth v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 442AppointmentThere cannot be a discrimination amongst the homogenous class of the candidates based on their date of admission who secured admission to the same course through the same process in the same academic session while determining their eligibility for getting an appointment to a particular position. Manilal v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 685 : AIR 2024 SC 4404Supreme Court grants relief to UPSC aspirant who missed re-medical test in 2014, allows his appointment on clearing test. Rakshit Shivam Prakash v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 547City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014 (Bihar) - The candidate, who applied for the position of City Manager scored 22.575 marks (32.14%) out of 70, which exceeded the required 32% threshold. However, her candidature was rejected due to having zero work experience. The BSSC had considered work experience as part of the minimum qualifying marks, thus counting her total score out of 100 marks instead of just the written examination score. The Supreme Court, upholding the High Court's findings, ruled that the BSSC's approach was contrary to the statutory rules, and clarified that while work experience marks should be considered in the final merit list, the candidate's qualifying score in the written exam entitled her to be included in the merit list. The appeal by the BSSC was dismissed. (Para 16) Bihar Staff Selection Commission v. Himal Kumari, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 483Supreme Court delivers split verdict on appointment of Shiksha Karmi's in Madhya Pradesh. Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 279Armed Forces Grant of Permanent Commission to Short Service Commissioned (SSC) Officer in the Army Dental Corps (AD Corps) - Whether the appellant, a Short Service Commissioned officer, is entitled to parity with similarly situated officers who were granted permanent commission following the judgment in O.A. No. 111 of 2013 by the AFT, Principal Bench. Whether ...

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2024: Service Law

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags