Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
ARUN KUMAR NIRANJAN V/S DISTRICT BASIC EDUCATION OFFICER & OTHERS, decided on Friday, August 25, 2017.
[ In the Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 10866-10867 of 2017 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 5894-5895 of 2017). ] 25/08/2017
Judge(s) : KURIAN JOSEPH & R. BANUMATHI
Advocate(s) : Anupam Mishra, Pooja Singh. Aishwarya Bhati, Alka Sinha, Adarsh Kumar Tiwari, Anuvrat Sharma.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-


  Santoshanand Avdoot @ Ghanshyam Prashad & Others Versus State,   14/08/2014.  

  Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid & Others Versus State Of Maharashtra & Others,   29/08/2012.  

  The State of Maharashtra & Another Versus Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid & Another,   21/02/2011.  

  M.M. Deepa, Advocate Versus The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum & Others ,   23/12/2005.  

  Santi Chakraborty Versus State of West Bengal,   10/06/2005.  

  Sanjiv Kumar Patel Versus Janpad Panchayat,   29/01/2002.  

  Kartar Singh Versus State of Punjab ,   11/03/1994.  

  Janardan Paswan Versus State,   23/07/1987.  




#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw









    Kurian Joseph J.Leave granted.2. The appellant while working as a teacher was promoted to the post of Headmaster in the year 2007. It appears that the appellant did not join duty because according to the appellant it was to a rural inconvenient area. Thereafter the appellant was promoted again and posted as Headmaster by order dated 28.08.2010.3. While working as Headmaster in terms of the promotion the following Office Order was issued on 04.09.2010:-As per the serial no. 145 of order no./Promotion/282/2010-11 dated 28.08.2010 of this office Shri Vishnuswarup Assistant Teacher Girls Primary School Nibahna Block : Maheva has been promoted on the post of Head Master in Girls Primary School Nibahna Block : Maheva. His promotion being of 2007 and on the basis of approval of the Chairman District Selection Committee (Promotion) is cancelled till the next orders with immediate effect.4. Thereafter on 18.04.2011 a chargesheet was issued to the appellant with the following charges :-1.Not taking charge in the original school after the cancellation of the promotion;2.Defying the instructions of the A.B.S.A. Development Block : Kaunch;3.Defying the Developmental Orders.5. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the rules were amended on 15.01.2010. The amended Rule (d) reads as follows :-If any teacher refuses the promotion within from the both aforesaid backward areas that teacher would not be promoted till upcoming three years and again after three years the promotion of that teacher would be considered as per prescribed rules.6. The learned Single Judge took the view that for declining to accept the promotion and refusing to join duty on account of promotion in the year 2007 the appellant cannot be visited with any penal consequences by relying on order issued in the year 2010. However the order has been set aside as per the impugned order passed by the Division Bench. It is held by the Division Bench that the actual promotion of the appellant was after the introduction of the amended rules in January 2010. But unfortunately the Division Bench missed the crucial point that the appellant is proceeded against in respect of his conduct in the year 2007 namely declining to accept the promotion and refusing to join duty in the promoted post. It is not in respect of an offending conduct after the introduction of the new rules in 2010. Therefore we set aside the impugned Judgment and restore the Judgment of the learned Single Judge.7. However in the peculiar facts of this case the order on costs passed by the learned Single Judge is vacated.8. In view of the above the appeals are disposed of.No costs.