Service Matters: Compilation Of High Court Judgments In 2022 [Part I]

LiveLaw reported almost 7,000 orders and judgments in 2022 from various High Courts across the country. Here is a Digest on decisions relating to Service matters. This is the first of four parts of this Digest:1. [GPF Rules] Rule Framed Under Article 309 Can't Be Replaced By Executive Order Issued Under Article 162: Allahabad High CourtCase title - Anurag Mehrotra v. State Of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy.Finance Deptt. Lko & Ors.Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 12The High Court has observed that any rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India can only be replaced by an Act of an appropriate legislature and the same cannot be replaced by an executive order issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India.The Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary observed thus as it set aside a government's order of 1986 withdrawing the benefit of bonus required to be paid under Rule 12 of the General Provident Fund (U.P.), Rules, 1985.2. Appointment In Public Services Secured Through Fraudulent Concealment Void Ab Initio, Long Continuation In Service Immaterial: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: Sumit Kumar Verma v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Dept. Of Medical Edu.Govt. Of U.P.Civil Secrtt. Lko And OthersCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 69The High Court, sitting in Lucknow, recently held that when employment in a public service is obtained by playing fraud, the long continuation in such service would be immaterial to uphold the appointment.Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed,"it is evident that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact and played fraud for securing public employment and, therefore, his long continuation (15 years) would not be of any help to him to continue to hold his post inasmuch as his appointment was void ab initio."3. Allahabad HC Upholds Compulsory Retirement Of Govt Employee Found To Be 'Indolent', 'Religious Bigot' & 'Harasser Of Females'Case title - Mohammed Naseem Ali v. State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. And Ors.Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 73Stressing that the employer is entitled to remove the dead woods from service, the High Court recently upheld the order of compulsory retirement of a Government employee who was found to be indolent, quarrelsome, disturber of peace, religious bigot, harasser of females, and scheduled caste people.The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh also observed that an employer is entitled to remove the dead woods from service if on consideration of the service record, it is found that the work of such an employee has not been upto the mark or he has become 'dead wood' for the organization.4. Courts Can't Direct Govt To Have A Particular Method Of Recruitment, Eligibility Criteria For Services: Allahabad High CourtCase title - Alok Shukla And Another v. State Of U P And 2 OthersCase Citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 88The Allahabad High Court has observed that the prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service pertains to the field of policy and is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State and that it is not open to the Courts to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria.The Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan further opined that the selection and appointment to any post should be made strictly in accordance with terms of the advertisement and the recruitment rules.5. Armed Forces Tribunal Act Cannot Curtail High Court's Power Of Judicial Review U/A 226: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: Ram Harsh v. Union of India and 4 OthersCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 98The High Court made it clear that the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 cannot and does not oust the High Court's power of judicial review contained under Article 226 of the Constitution."The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary and discretionary in nature. It is also to be noted that the powers to be exercised by the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are constitutional powers and the same cannot be excluded by legislation. The Armed Forces Tribunal Act cannot curtail the powers under the grundnorm being the constitution," a Bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed.6. No Class-IV Employee Should Normally Be Transferred Out Of District: Allahabad High CourtCase Title - Smt. Maya v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health And OrsCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 99The High Court observed that no Class-IV employee should normally be transferred out of the district. The Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary made this observation while setting aside a transfer order passed against a Class IV Employee as it noted that the same was punitive in nature.Essentially, the petitioner Smt. Maya (a Class IV Employee) was transferred by State Medical Health Department from Lucknow to Kanpur by transfer order dated July 12, 2021, on administrative grounds, however, the officer responsible for her transfer did not give any reason whatsoever for...

Service Matters: Compilation Of High Court Judgments In 2022 [Part I]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags