Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointed earlier, however regularised after 2004 -- Old Pension scheme – Applicability of -- Argues that as per Harbans Lal's case, (2010) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15829 though the services of the employees might have been regularized after 01.01.2004 but in case, the said employees were in service prior to the said date, they will be governed by the old Pension Scheme -- Writ petition disposed of with a direction to decide the representation of the petitioners within a period of four months, in case, after the decision, the petitioner is found entitled for the relief, the same be also extended to them expeditiously but not later than two months from the said decision.

(Para 2, 7)

A. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 17B -- Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher courts -- Last wage drawn – Delay in implementation of award -- Duty of employer – Responsibility of the employer to make the payment of 'wages last drawn' by the workman before termination of his service is not dependent or related to any interim order passed by the High Court -- This responsibility of the employer to make such payment is a liability, per se, arising only from the factum of filing of the writ petition by the employer; which is to continue during the duration of pendency of such writ petition -- There cannot be any escape from this liability under any circumstances for any reason whatsoever; except by seeking an order from High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, under proviso to this Section, since there cannot be any estoppel against a statute.

(Para 6)

B. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 33C(1) – Execution of award – Award under challenge in writ -- Executing Court allowed the revised wages to the respondent-workman from the date of Award; instead of granting the said benefit from the date of his actual reinstatement -- Since the petitioner-employer is already before the High Court against the Award and the issue of reinstatement is also subject to the decision of the writ petition, therefore, the grant of revised wages for the period before the actual reinstatement, at this stage, may not be germane to law -- There was no necessity for the Executing Court to create a situation where the workman might have to return the money in the situation of writ petition being allowed by the High Court; ultimately -- Hence, the direction of the Executing Court to that extent deserves to be modified.

(Para 8)

A. Constitution of India, Article 32, 136, 226 -- Disciplinary enquiries against employee – Judicial review – Scope of -- Power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional Courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority.

(Para 23)

B. Constitution of India, Article 32, 136, 226 -- Disciplinary action against employee – Judicial review – Scope of -- Power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself -- It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion -- Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if based on no evidence -- If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued -- To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.

(Para 25)

C. Constitution of India, Article 32, 136, 226 -- Disciplinary enquiries against employee – Judicial review – Scope of -- When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the Court is to examine and determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority; (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with; (iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.

(Para 26)

D. Disciplinary enquiries against employee – Power of Disciplinary authority to differ -- Where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry.

(Para 27)

E. Disciplinary enquiries against employee – Evidence required -- Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings -- However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee -- Mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings.

(Para 28)

F. Constitution of India, Article 32, 136, 226 -- Disciplinary enquiries against employee – Judicial review – Scope of -- Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of malafides or perversity, i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.

(Para 29)

F. Constitution of India, Article 32, 136, 226 -- Dismissal of bank employee -- Judicial review – Scope of -- Chargesheet was served upon the respondent delinquent for misappropriation of public funds by affording fake credits in his various accounts maintained at the branch where he was serving – In enquiry charge no.1 not proved and charges nos. 2-7 stood proved against the delinquent respondent -- It was later revisited by the disciplinary authority and apart from the note of disagreement in reference to charge no. 1, the disciplinary authority accepted the finding of fact recorded by the enquiry officer in his report for charge nos. 2 to 7 and with its prima facie opinion, called upon the respondent to submit his explanation and after affording an opportunity of hearing and expressed its brief reasons while upholding the finding recorded by the enquiry officer in his report and confirmed its opinion of inflicting penalty of dismissal from service – Appellate authority after assigning reasons confirmed the finding of fact in upholding the order of penalty inflicted upon the respondent delinquent – Held;

-- if the order of dismissal was based on the findings of charge no. 1 alone, it would have been possible for the Court to declare the order of dismissal illegal but on the finding of guilt being recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his report in reference to charges nos.2-7 and confirmed by the disciplinary/appellate authority was not liable to be interfered and those findings established the guilt of grave delinquency.

-- The Constitution Bench has clearly laid down that even after the charges which have been proved, justify imposition of penalty, the Court may not exercise its power of judicial review.

-- In banking business absolute devotion, integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every bank employee -- It requires the employee to maintain good conduct and discipline and he deals with money of the depositors and the customers and if it is not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors would be impaired – For this additional reason, Court opined that High Court has committed an apparent error in setting aside the order of dismissal of employee.

(Para 30-43)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Death cum retiral benefits – Delay in release – Entitlement of interest thereupon -- Petitioner was entitled for the release of the benefits by November, 2012 i.e. within a period of two months after the death of her husband, which have been actually released to her in December, 2020, after a delay of more than eight years – Held, petitioner is entitled for interest @ 9% per annum on the payments which have been released to her now from the date the same became due i.e. 04.09.2012 onwards till the release of the same -- Petition allowed.

(Para 12)

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016), Section 20 – Disability during the course of employment -- Non-discrimination in employment to person with disability -- Extension in retirement -- Services of the employees similarly situated have been extended uptill 31.03.2021 and the petitioner is being discharged w.e.f. 31.12.2020 as she is due to attain the age of 58 years – Benefit under the Act would clearly be available to the petitioner though circumscribed within the parameters of contractual employment – Petitioner cannot be non-suited merely on the ground that employment was not secured on the basis of disability and the benefits as available due to disability are thus not to be afforded – Direction given to verify the medical certificate and if required, petitioner be medically examined to determine the disability as claimed – If petitioner indeed suffering from the disability, which would entitle her to the benefit as claimed, necessary action shall be taken by the respondents to afford extension of service to the petitioner as afforded to similarly situated employees.

(Para 6-9)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Contractual employee – Termination of -- It is the duty of Courts to ensure that employees are fairly treated -- A contractual employee cannot be replaced by another contractual employee as it would permit the employer to keep a sanctioned post vacant and make a person work on reduced remuneration against the said post.

(Para 9)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment through intermediary – Status of -- Termination of -- Right of -- Petitioner was not directly appointed by the Government -- Fact that respondent No.2/ Director General, Department of Horticulture, Haryana was issuing direct orders for allocating work to the petitioner does not in any way lead to the conclusion that he was directly appointed by the said respondent -- Overall control however, remains with respondent No.4/ Contractor who would be the employer of the petitioner -- If the manpower supplied is replaced by the contractor, he continues to be the employee of the contractor and can be deployed elsewhere -- He does not become jobless and in case wages are not being paid to him, he can invoke the jurisdiction of the Industrial Adjudicator -- Industrial Adjudicator can also pierce the veil and return a finding that the contract in the present case is a sham but to return such a finding evidence would need to be led – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 10-12)

Service matter -- Carrier Advancement Scheme – Promotion to the post of Professor in University -- Benefit of service as Associate Professor in College – Right of -- First respondent/ Writ petitioner was working as an Associate Professor, in the College, which is affiliated to Karnataka University w.e.f 01.01.2009 – Thereafter, he was appointed as an Associate Professor in the University on 28.10.2013 – He claimed his promotion under Carrier Advancement Scheme (CAS), promulgated by the UGC, to be given effect from 01.01.2009 instead of 28.10.2013 – Held, incumbent teacher, who is entitled for promotion under the scheme, is to be given benefit only from the entry of service of such incumbent into the University -- Though the earlier service is to be counted for the purpose of giving benefit of promotion, but effective date for all purposes is only from the date of entry of first respondent into the University service, i.e, 28.10.2013 -- University is not expected to grant promotion, covering the period, anterior to the entry of service of the first respondent into University -- As such, University has rightly given the benefit of promotion from 28.10.2013. Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (29 of 2001), Section 2(2).

(Para 2, 17-19)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Appointment for Deputy Superintendent, Jail -- Preference to candidates holding Degree or Diploma in Criminology -- Weightage of – Right of -- Petitioner is post graduate in Criminology – Held, preference does not constitute a reservation – If that were so, the sanctity of the selection process would be diluted as the same has been designed in a manner to permit candidates without preferential qualifications to show their superiority -- Merit would be compromised in case candidates with preferential qualifications were considered as a separate block – Held, petitioner is not right in contending that he should have been preferred for appointment.

(Para 10, 11)

Punjab State Electricity Board Employees' (now PSPCL) (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1971, Regulation 14(1) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Dismissal of service on account of conviction in Sections 325, 341, 323, 506 and 34 IPC -- Incident occurred due to cutting of Safeda trees over a piece of disputed land -- Complaint was made by wife of the real brother of the petitioner – Allegations which led to his conviction were totally unconnected with his service -- He was not involved in an offence involving moral turpitude -- Held, before passing an order for removal the competent Authority was required to consider the entire conduct of the delinquent employee, the gravity of the misconduct committed by him, the impact which his misconduct is likely to have, on the administration and other extenuating circumstances or redeeming features, if any present in the case – Impugned order discloses no application of mind and consideration of the factors -- Petition allowed, petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service, however respondents granted liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, if so advised. Kaur Singh’s case 2007(4) SCT 426 relied.

(Para 6-10)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Rule 16.38 – Criminal and departmental proceedings – Challenge to – Revocation of suspension – Effect of -- Prior concurrence of the District Magistrate would be required if the Superintendent of Police, decides only to initiate a departmental action instead of registering an FIR against the enrolled police officer -- Still further, it would not be appropriate for High Court, to finally form an opinion particularly when the proceedings are pending before the Court/authority -- Revocation of suspension does not result in absolving the petitioner either from the criminal case or from the departmental proceedings – Court did not find it appropriate to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 10-16)

Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (23 of 1957), Section 11 – Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, Rules 146.2 and 153 -- Compulsory retirement -- Gross neglect of duty – Theft of railway property – A police officer in the Railway Protection Force is required to maintain a high standard of integrity in the discharge of his official functions -- Charges proved against the Respondent “were of neglect of duty” which resulted in pecuniary loss to the Railways -- High Court was therefore not justified in setting aside the order of compulsory retirement, and directing re-instatement with consequential benefits, and payment of back-wages to the extent of 50% -- High Court’s order set aside – Gratuity, if due, be released -- Appeal allowed.

(Para 3,12,13)

Appointment of Peon in Punjab National Bank – Required qualification 10+2 (Graduate not eligible) – Appointment of respondent as peon by supressing the factum of being graduate – It is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post and it is not for the Courts to consider and assess -- Courts are not fit instruments to assess expediency or advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications -- However, at the same time, the employer cannot act arbitrarily or fancifully in prescribing qualifications for posts -- Eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement not challenged by respondent – Once having participated in the recruitment process as per the advertisement, thereafter it is not open for him to contend that acquisition of higher qualification cannot be a disqualification – Even a candidate having suppressed the material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continuance in service.

(Para 6-8)

Service Matter -- Kumaun University, Statute No. 16.24 – Retirement of Professor in mid-session – Permissibility of -- Aggrieved appellants/Professors approached the High Court in writ proceedings claiming that they were entitled to continue in service, on extension up to the end of June, 2021 by relying upon Dr. Indu Singh’s 2017 SCC Online 1527 case – Writ petitions were dismissed -- Held, very object and intent of the proviso to Statute No.16.24 is to avoid the disruption caused by discontinuity of service of a teaching staff employee or official mid-session -- Therefore, the view in Indu Singh’s case, dealing with an identical statute, was correctly interpreted -- Impugned judgment and orders of the High Court are set aside -- Appellants are entitled, consequently, to continue till the end of the following June on re-employment -- If any of them has been superannuated, he or she shall be issued with orders of reinstatement, with full salary for the period they were out of employment, and allowed to continue till the following June, on re-employment basis -- Appeals allowed.

(Para 2,3,14,15)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Service Matter – Haryana Armed police -- Family pension to second wife – Right of -- First wife is still alive -- Marriage of petitioner even if said to be with the consent of first wife cannot be given the colour of a valid marriage -- Under the applicable pension rules, it is legally wedded wife, who would be entitled to the family pension -- In case there is an understanding between the legally wedded wife and any other person, the same would not affect the aforesaid provision -- Claim turned down mainly on the ground that the petitioner is not the legally wedded wife of deceased -- No infirmity in the impugned order -- Writ petition, dismissed.

(Para 7)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Contractual employee – Termination of – Interim order for not appointing new employee – Maintainability of -- High Court passed an interim order restraining the appellant Corporation from appointing new set of contractual employees in place of original writ petitioners -- No reasons, whatsoever have been assigned by the High Court while passing the impugned interim order -- High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that according to the appellant Corporation, there was no regular sanctioned post of Computer Operator in the appellant Corporation and that there was no employer-employee relationship between the original writ petitioner and the appellant Corporation and that the original writ petitioner was a employee appointed by the contractor on contractual basis and worked with the appellant Corporation on contractual basis – Impugned interim order passed by the High Court quashed and set aside.

(Para 5-7)

Punjab Police (Haryana Amendment ) Rules, 2015, Rule 12.18 (3) (e) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 12 – FIR against candidate – Acquittal as witnesses turned hostile – Right of appointment as Constable -- Petitioner was acquitted ‘while extending benefit of doubt to him’ which acquittal cannot be equated with a clean acquittal after a full-fledged trial has taken place and the witnesses have not compromised or turned hostile – Rule does not permit a candidate to be appointed, who has been acquitted on technical grounds, as in the instant case -- Employer would still have a right to consider the antecedents of the candidate and could not be compelled to appoint any such candidate, who is ineligible as per the Rules – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 10-12)

Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, Rule 24, 25 -- Service matter – Appointment of Constable (Executive) – Failed to get cut-off marks -- Respondents participated in the selection process and upon the declaration of the revised result, they have failed to obtain marks above the cut-off for the OBC category to which they belong – High Court has been manifestly in error in issuing a mandamus to the appellants to appoint the respondents on the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police -- Direction was clearly contrary to law – Appeals allowed, judgments of the High Court set aside.

(Para 17)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 21, 300-A -- Petitioner worked from 17.07.1984 to 31.12.2012 which is about 28 years – Petitioner regularised on 31.12.2012 whereas juniors regularised w.e.f. 8.11.2012 -- Petitioner had fulfilled all the requirements as per the policy instructions dated 04.03.1999 except that she was not appointed through employment exchange -- Similarly situated persons have been already regularized on 08.11.2012 – Petition allowed -- Direction given that:

(i)      date of regularization of the petitioner shall be 08.11.2012 i.e. when the other similarly situated persons including some of the juniors of the petitioner were regularized.

(ii)     Respondent State shall fix full pension of the petitioner and re-calculate the pension of the petitioner and pay the arrears of all the admissible benefits to the petitioner arising out of regularization of service of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date when the benefit became due.

(iii)    petitioner shall also be entitled for costs of Rs.25,000/- which shall be paid by the respondent department to the petitioner by way of demand draft.

(Para 14-21)

Haryana Transport Department (Group-C) Haryana Roadways Services Rules, 1995, Appendix-B -- Selection of Supervisor – Change in eligibility criteria – Legality of -- As per advertisement and rules no requirement of supervisory experience – Experience requirement was changed and that too on completion of the selection process – Held, it is not a case of filling up the gaps by administrative instructions but rather changing the eligibility criteria as prescribed in the Rules -- In other words amending the Rules that too when the selection procedure was complete -- Appeal allowed, respondents are directed to consider the cases of the appellants for appointment as Station Supervisors on the basis of the eligibility qualifications provided in the advertisement and the Rules and if found eligible to appoint them as such.

(Para 12, 20,21)

Constitution of India, Article 12, 39, 42, 226 -- Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (53 of  1961) -- Non-providing of maternity benefits -- Termination of employee – Maintainability of writ against private Company – Private entity is not a ‘State’ nor an 'instrumentality' or an 'agency' of the Government within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus, would not be amenable to writ jurisdiction – High court could have issued notice in case the petitioner was able to establish that the respondent/ software development company was performing a public duty, which is not the case – Writ petition dismissed being not maintainable, giving liberty to the petitioner to avail of her proper remedy in accordance with law.

(Para 1-5)

Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), Section 5, 59 – Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Public emergency – Covid-19 situation /lockdown – Notifications to exempt factories from observing some of the obligations towards employers – Over-time to employees – Respondent-State aimed to ameliorate the financial exigencies that were caused due to the pandemic and the subsequent lockdown – Held, financial losses cannot be offset on the weary shoulders of the laboring worker, who provides the backbone of the economy -- Section 5 of the Factories Act could not have been invoked to issue a blanket notification that exempted all factories from complying with humane working conditions and adequate compensation for overtime, as a response to a pandemic that did not result in an ‘internal disturbance’ of a nature that posed a ‘grave emergency’ whereby the security of India is threatened -- In any event, no factory/ classes of factories could have been exempted from compliance with provisions of the Factories Act, unless an ‘internal disturbance’ causes a grave emergency that threatens the security of the state, so as to constitute a ‘public emergency’ within the meaning of Section 5 of the Factories Act -- Writ petition allowed and Notification No. GHR/ 2020/56/FAC/142020/346/M3 dated 17 April 2020 and Notification No. GHR/2020/92/FAC/142020/346/M3 dated 20 July 2020 issued by the Labour and Employment Department of the Respondent State, quashed – Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, Court directed that overtime wages shall be paid, in accordance with the provisions of Section 59 of the Factories Act to all eligible workers who have been working since the issuance of the notifications.

(Para 45, 46)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226, 311 – Departmental enquiry – Judicial review – Nature of – Power of judicial review discharged by Constitutional Courts under Article 226 or 32, or when sitting in appeal under Article 136, is distinct from the appellate power exercised by a departmental appellate authority – Judicial review is an evaluation of the decision-making process, and not the merits of the decision itself – Judicial Review seeks to ensure fairness in treatment and not fairness of conclusion – It ought to be used to correct manifest errors of law or procedure, which might result in significant injustice; or in case of bias or gross unreasonableness of outcome.

(Para 25)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226, 311 – Disciplinary proceedings -- Constitutional Courts while exercising their powers of judicial review would not assume the role of an appellate authority – Their jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice -- Put differently, judicial review is not analogous to venturing into the merits of a case like an appellate authority.

(Para 28)

C. Constitution of India, Article 226, 311 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 165 -- Disciplinary proceedings -- Objection on role of Enquiry officer – It must be recognized that, under Section 165, Evidence Act, judges have the power to ask any question to any witness or party about any fact, in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts -- While strict rules of evidence are inapplicable to disciplinary proceedings, enquiry officers often put questions to witnesses in such proceedings in order to discover the truth -- Indeed, it may be necessary to do such direct questioning in certain circumstances -- No specific malice or bias has been alleged against the enquiry officer, and even during the enquiry no request had been made to seek a replacement; thus, evidencing how these objections are nothing but an afterthought.

(Para 31)

D. Constitution of India, Article 226, 311 – Departmental enquiry – Allegation of corruption – Non-action in criminal case -- Dismissal from service -- After investigation, the CBI though did not find adequate material to launch criminal prosecution but recommended major disciplinary action – In a disciplinary enquiry, strict rules of evidence and procedure of a criminal trial are inapplicable, like say, statements made before enquiry officers can be relied upon in certain instances -- Appellant’s contention that he should be exonerated in the present proceedings as no criminal chargesheet was filed by the CBI after enquiry, is liable to be discarded – Employer always retains the right to conduct an independent disciplinary proceeding, irrespective of the outcome of a criminal proceeding.

(Para 33-35)

E. Constitution of India, Article 226, 311 – Allegation of corruption -- Departmental enquiry – Dismissal from service – Interference in -- Unlike in criminal cases, in matters of disciplinary proceedings Courts only interfere on grounds of proportionality when they find that the punishment awarded is inordinate to a high degree, or if the conscience of the Court itself is shocked -- Thus, whereas imposition of major penalty (like dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank) would be discriminatory and impermissible for trivial misdeeds; but for grave offences there is a need to send a clear message of deterrence to the society -- Charges such as corruption, misappropriation and gross indiscipline are prime examples of the latter category, and ought to be dealt with strictly – Dismissal order, upheld.

(Para 1, 36)

Constitution of India, Article 16 -- Maharashtra State Reservation (of Seats for admission in Educational Institutions in the State and for appointments in the Public Services and posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018 (62 of 2018) – 16% reservations to Marathas to be a “Socially and Educationally Backward Class” – Validity of – Matter referred to Larger Bench : 

-- As per Indra Sawhney’s case 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217, Article 16 (4) should be balanced against the guarantee of equality enshrined in Article 16 (1), which is a guarantee held out to every citizen, reservations contemplated in Clause (4) of Article 16 should not exceed 50 per cent -- Relaxation of the strict rule of 50 per cent can be made in certain extraordinary situations -- People living in far flung and remote areas not being in the mainstream of national life should be treated in a different way -- Extreme caution has to be exercised and a special case made out for relaxation of the rule of 50 per cent.

-- Court prima facie opined that the State of Maharashtra has not shown any extraordinary situation for providing reservations to Marathas in excess of 50 per cent. Maratha community which comprises of 30 per cent of the population in the State of Maharashtra cannot be compared to marginalized sections of the society living in far flung and remote areas. The State has failed to make out a special case for providing reservation in excess of 50 per cent. Neither has any caution been exercised by the State in doing so.

-- The social, educational and economic backwardness of a community, existence of quantifiable data relating to inadequacy of representation of the community in public services and deprivation of the benefits flowing from reservations to the community are not exceptional circumstances for providing reservations in excess of 50 per cent.

Court referred the matter to Larger Bench by passing following orders: -

(A) As the interpretation of the provisions inserted by the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 is a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, these Appeals are referred to a larger Bench. These matters shall be placed before Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India for suitable orders.

(B) Admissions to educational institutions for the academic year 2020-21 shall be made without reference to the reservations provided in the Act. We make it clear that the Admissions made to Post-Graduate Medical Courses shall not be altered.

(C) Appointments to public services and posts under the Government shall be made without implementing the reservation as provided in the Act. Liberty to mention for early hearing.

(Para 1, 15-17)

Service matter -- Arrears of pay and allowances – Right of -- High Court has failed to record any reason for limiting the relief regarding arrears of pay and allowances to the date of filing of writ petition and not three years preceding the date of filing of the writ petition – Held, in the facts of the case, the High Court ought to have granted relief as pressed by the appellant(s), namely, to pay arrears of pay and allowances with effect from three years preceding from the date of filing the stated writ petition -- Impugned judgment and order stands modified.

(Para 4-6)

Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh Regulations, 1967, Regulation 34 -- Tentative seniority list – Correction in -- Bona fide mistake in assigning seniority in terms of applicable regulations, can always be corrected by the concerned authority, particularly when the seniority lists issued till the date of such selection were only provisional/tentative -- Further, since no vested right stood created as a result of the provisional/tentative seniority lists, the issuance by the PGIMER of the revised seniority cannot be said to have caused any prejudice.

(Para 39)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Writ petition for interest on delayed payment of retiral dues – Maintainability of -- By now, it is well settled that a writ petition for payment of interest on delay in release of the amount representing retiral benefits is maintainable

(Para 6)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Disciplinary proceedings – Pendency of – Amount of Contributory Provident Fund could not be withheld – Contributory provident fund released in two instalments; firstly, on 07.12.2006 ? 6,11,693/-, secondly on 01.08.2017 ?10,40,578/- -- Petitioner was relieved from service on 24.04.2015 -- Thus, after giving three months, a reasonable period, interest is payable to the petitioner with effect from 01.08.2015 on the delayed payment of the amount representing CPF – Interest @ 8% p.a. awarded for delayed period.

(Para 7, 10)

C. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Punjab Civil Service Rules, Rule 2.2 (c)(1), Chapter II, Vol.II and Rule 8.21 (aa) Volume-I Chapter-VIII – Disciplinary proceedings – Withholding of Leave encashment/ Gratuity – Interest thereupon – Punishment for recovery of Rs.5,000/- passed in 15.2.2017, attained finality – Delay in release of leave encashment amount as well as gratuity – After giving three months reasonable period for release of the amount, the interest is payable with effect from 01.06.2017 on the aforesaid amount -- Interest @ 8% p.a. awarded for delayed period.

(Para 8, 10)

D. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Salary for a period worked on interim order – Recovery of -- Held, recovery could not be made because petitioner, under the interim order passed by the Court, had worked -- Writ petitioner held entitled to be paid the salary for the period he had actually worked.

(Para 9)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Contractual Extension Lecturer -- Minimum requirement of NET qualification – Whether the Appellants can be replaced by those possessing the NET qualification without being granted an opportunity to acquire such qualification? -- Held, there is no policy to grant time to serving contractual Extension Lecturers, not possessing NET time to possess such qualification while continuing in service, it is not possible for the Court to dictate to the Respondents to provide such a facility to the Appellants -- Writ prayer replacing the Appellants should not be themselves engaged on a contractual basis – Held, since the Appellants do not possess the mandatory NET qualification and, as such, cannot continue, there is no requirement to consider the submission as to how they are likely to be replaced.

(Para 2, 6-7)

Constitution of India, Article 15, 15(6), 16, 16(6), 30, 139, 145(3) -- Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Rule 38 – Challenge to insertion of 10% Reservation for economic Weaker section – Interpretation of Constitution -- Substantial question of law – Matters which involve substantial questions of law as to interpretation of constitutional provisions they are required to be heard by a Bench of five Judges -- Whether the impugned Amendment Act violates basic structure of the Constitution, by applying the tests of ‘width’ and ‘identity’ with reference to equality provisions of the Constitution, is a matter which constitutes substantial question of law -- Further, on the plea of ceiling of 50% for affirmative action, it is the case of the Union of India that though ordinarily 50% is the rule but same will not prevent to amend the Constitution itself in view of the existing special circumstances to uplift the members of the society belonging to economically weaker sections -- Even such questions also constitute as substantial questions of law to be examined by a Bench of five Judges as per Article 145(3) of the Constitution read with Order XXXVIII Rule 1(1) of the Supreme Court of Rules, 2013 – Challenge pending before various High Court by way of writ petitions -- Transfer petitions allowed and Supreme Court referred batch of cases, including the cases covered by transfer applications, to a Bench of five Judges.

(Para 16)

Service Law – Appointment of Labour Welfare Superintendent – Eligibility qualification is post graduate degree or diploma in Social Work, Labour Welfare, Industrial Relations or Personnel Management -- Held, MBA degree cannot be regarded as allied to a post graduate degree or diploma in Social Work, Labour Welfare, Industrial Relations or Personnel Management -- Appellant as an employer was best suited to judge whether the degree of the first respondent was in an allied subject -- Unless this assessment was perverse or contrary to the requirements prescribed, the Tribunal had no reason to interfere –Tribunal was manifestly in error in holding that the first respondent was qualified merely because he studied two subjects as a part of his MBA degree programme, namely, Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations and Labour Legislation -- High Court has simply affirmed the view of the Tribunal -- Appeal allowed, impugned judgment and order set aside

(Para 2, 9, 10)

Disaster Management Act, 2005 (53 of 2005), Section 10(2)(l) – Constitution of India, Article 14, 19(1)(g) -- Lock down period during pandemic Covid-19 – Full wages to employees for 50 days – Notification/Order issued by Union of India – Power of – Challenged being violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) -- Both Industry and Labourers need each other -- No Industry or establishment can survive without employees/labourers and vice versa – Held, efforts should be made to sort out the differences and disputes between the workers and the employers regarding payment of wages of above 50 days and if any settlement or negotiation can be entered into between them without regard to the order dated 29.03.2020, the said steps may restore congenial work atmosphere – Directions issued for following interim measures which can be availed by all the private establishment, industries, factories and workers Trade Unions/ Employees Associations etc. which may be facilitated by the State Authorities: -

i) The private establishment, industries, employers who are willing to enter into negotiation and settlement with the workers/employees regarding payment of wages for 50 days or for any other period as applicable in any particular State during which their industrial establishment was closed down due to lockdown, may initiate a process of negotiation with their employees organization and enter into a settlement with them and if they are unable to settle by themselves submit a request to concerned labour authorities who are entrusted with the obligation under the different statute to conciliate the dispute between the parties who on receiving such request, may call the concerned Employees Trade Union/workers Association/ workers to appear on a date for negotiation, conciliation and settlement. In event a settlement is arrived at, that may be acted upon by the employers and workers irrespective of the order dated 29.03.2020 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs.

ii) Those employers’ establishments, industries, factories which were working during the lockdown period although not to their capacity can also take steps as indicated in direction No.(i).

iii) The private establishments, industries, factories shall permit the workers/employees to work in their establishment who are willing to work which may be without prejudice to rights of the workers/employees regarding unpaid wages of above 50 days. The private establishments, factories who proceed to take steps as per directions (i) and (ii) shall publicise and communicate about their such steps to workers and employees for their response/participation. The settlement, if any, as indicated above shall be without prejudice to the rights of employers and employees which is pending adjudication in these writ petitions.

iv) The Central Government, all the States/UTs through their Ministry of Labour shall circulate and publicise this order for the benefit of all private establishment, employers, factories and workers/employees.

(Para 7, 36, 37)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- HCS (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987, Rule 7 -- Dismissal from service -- Absent from duty from 07.04.2001 to 07.04.2014 -- Taken back in service vide order dated 01.08.2014 in compliance of order passed by Governor -- While allowing the memorial appeal of the petitioner, it has been categorically observed that someone in an influential position in the department has manipulated the things against the petitioner -- Thus, the petitioner was always ready and willing to work but was deprived by the respondents – Held, Principal of No Work No Pay cannot be invoked -- Petition allowed and respondents are directed to release the salary of the petitioner for the period w.e.f 07.04.2001 to 07.04.2014 – Petitioner is held entitled to all consequential benefits.

(Para 2, 16-18)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003, Rule 4 – Ex-gratia/ Compassionate appointment – Ex-gratia financial assistance -- Death of employee on 29.06.2001 – Compassionate appointment was sought  for petitioner no.2/son -- Eventually sought financial assistance under Rules, 2003 in lieu of employment and accepted the payment of Rs. 2.5 lakhs released on 23.10.2007 -- Thereafter, the petitioners maintained a stoic silence and it was only on dated 12.09.2019 a legal notice was served for grant of compassionate appointment – Though petitioner No. 2 attained the age of employment in 2004 besides even the legal notice dated 12.06.2019 having been served only on behalf of petitioner No. 1, the writ petition is not maintainable, besides is highly belated -- Writ petition is dismissed.

(Para 10)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector – Eligible qualification -- Petitioner has done Master of Technology (Computer Assisted Design / Computer Assisted Manufacturing) full time from Punjab Technical University -- Same is recognised by AICTE – Held, the petitioner, fulfils the conditions for consideration for selection and appointment to the post of Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector, as per merit.

(Para 11)

A. Constitution of India, Section 226 -- Transfer of employee – Interference in -- It is by now well settled that the transfer is an incidence of service -- Orders of transfer are open to interference if such orders have been passed in mala fide exercise of power, in violation of any statutory provision or have been issued by an authority not having the jurisdiction to direct transfer.

(Para 6)

B. Constitution of India, Section 226 -- Transfer policy – Enforceability -- Right of -- It is well settled that terms and conditions contained in a transfer policy do not vest an enforceable right in an employee.

(Para 8)

C. Constitution of India, Section 226 -- Transfer of employee – Reasons of – Requirement of -- There would be no obligation upon the employer to record reasons for effecting transfer -- No specific pleadings in the petition alleging mala fides against any senior official of the respondent department or against the transferring authority -- Under such circumstances mala fide cannot be inferred -- No interference in the matter is warranted.

(Para 10,11)

A. Civil Contempt -- To constitute civil contempt, it must be established that disobedience of the order is wilful, deliberate and with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom.

(Para 12)

B. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 10(1)(d) – General directions -- Civil Contempt -- No specific direction has been given to the Corporation to regularise the concerned workmen only in the Departmental Labour System -- Furthermore, the Departmental Labour System is now a dying cadre and the policy of the Corporation at the relevant time entailed regularisation of such workmen only under the Direct Payment System (DPS) -- No contempt action can be initiated on the basis of general direction to the respondents to regularise and departmentalise the concerned workmen -- No case for initiating contempt against the respondent Corporation and its officers has been made out.

(Para 23-25)

A. Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (25 of 1961), Section 54 – Dismissal of employee -- Embezzlement charge – Inquiry Report -- Inquiry Report does not even reflect any consideration, worth the name, of the documentary evidence by the Inquiry Officer to support his ultimate findings -- Inquiry Officer patently went by the oral evidence adduced before him, which was discussed at length, but there is neither any detailed reference to nor discussion about the documentary evidence marked through the said witnesses -- Though it would not have been possible for the Inquiry Officer to record individual findings on each of the 3549 fake entries allegedly made by the petitioner, he did not even choose to randomly test and analyze at least some such entries and record proper findings thereon – Dismissal order and Inquiry report are incurably tainted by illegality and arbitrariness apart from being violative of the principles of natural justice.

(Para 67,68, 71)

B. Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (25 of 1961), Section 54 -- Destruction of record – Burden of proof -- Inquiry Officer merely noted that the ledger sheets were missing and held that ‘there was no evidence to rebut that ledger sheets missing have not been stolen/ destroyed/concealed by the Charged Official’ -- Inquiry Officer thereupon opined that the allegation that these documents were destroyed or stolen by the petitioner stood proved – Burden of proving the charges was shifted upon the petitioner in reverse – Held, it was for the Bank to substantiate and prove that the petitioner had stolen the ledger sheets of his own accounts from the two Branches and not for the petitioner to rebut such a presumption, as postulated by the Inquiry Officer -- Dismissal order and Inquiry report are incurably tainted by illegality and arbitrariness apart from being violative of the principles of natural justice.

(Para 69, 71)

C. Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (25 of 1961), Section 54 -- Ex-parte inquiry – Cross-examination of witnesses – Right of -- Non-cooperation attributed to the petitioner to justify his exclusion from the inquiry is wholly insufficient as the Inquiry Officer himself recorded that even thereafter, he invited the petitioner to participate in the proceedings -- However, there is no indication of the Inquiry Officer putting the petitioner on notice – Petitioner ought not to have been deprived of an opportunity to at least cross-examine the witnesses, two of whom were the authors of the final reports, even if he had been set ex parte, which, in fact, he was not -- He was however denied such opportunity -- Thus, the inquiry proceedings stand vitiated on this ground.

(Para 70, 71)

A. Constitution of India, Article 311 -- Removal of probationer on assessment of performance – Enquiry -- Opportunity of hearing -- Requirement of -- Probationer not strictly covered within the umbrella of Article 311 -- Merely because ACRs were consistently marked ‘Good’, it cannot be a ground to bestow him with a right to continue in service – Neither any specific misconduct has been attributed nor any allegation made – Order is based upon overall assessment of the performance during the period of probation, which was not found satisfactory – Such an inference which can be a valid foundation to dispense with services of a probationer does not warrant holding of an enquiry in terms of Article 311 of the Constitution -- In cases of ‘stigmatic’ removal only that a reasonable opportunity of hearing is sine-qua-non.

(Para 14-20)

B. Constitution of India, Article 311 -- Probation period – Nature of -- Entire objective of probation is to provide the employer an opportunity to evaluate the probationer’s performance and test his suitability for a particular post -- Such an exercise is a necessary part of the process of recruitment, and must not be treated lightly -- Written tests and interviews are only attempts to predict a candidate’s possibility of success at a particular job -- True test of suitability is actual performance of duties which can only be applied after the candidate joins and starts working.

(Para 16)

C. Constitution of India, Article 311 -- Removal of probationer – Judicial review of -- If the Court finds that the real motive behind the order was to ‘punish’ the official, it may always strike down the same for want of reasonable opportunity of being heard -- Onus would lie on the probationer to prove that the action taken against him was of punitive characteristics.

(Para 21, 24)

D. Constitution of India, Article 311 -- Appointment of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate – Exercise of power not vested – Removal during probation -- Judicial officer is expected to be in know of Section 36(3) of the NDPS Act, 1985 which expressly ousts competence of a judicial officer below the rank of Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge in NDPS matters -- High Court on administrative side, therefore, justifiably inferred he was prone to act negligently or had the tendency to usurp power which the law does not vest in him -- This was a relevant factor to determine suitability of a probationer judicial officer – Order of discharge whereby services were dispensed with during probation approved.

(Para 23)

Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, Rule 5(ix) -- Dismissal of employee during probation period – Opportunity of hearing – Requirement of-- Order of termination of services is an order of punishment and punitive in nature as this order was in the form of dismissal order, which would ordinarily disqualify the petitioner from further employment under the Government – Plea that order being passed during period of probation and therefore, did not call for any response or hearing from the part of the petitioner is unacceptable – If a decision is taken by the employer to penalize an employee, who is on probation, the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, are required to be complied with especially when the same are being invoked for terminating the services of an employee.

(Para 7,8)

Service matter -- Pensionary benefits – Right of -- Pendency of complaint – Effect of -- Complaint made by a person against an employee which is still under investigation, cannot be treated as pending departmental proceedings -- In the absence of charge-sheet withholding of the pensionary benefits is totally arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction -- Merely on the basis of a complaint that too before the Vigilance Bureau, the benefits of the petitioner have been wrongly withheld -- Writ petition allowed, the respondents are directed to release all the pensionary benefits of the petitioner forthwith – Petitioner is also held entitled for the grant of interest @ 9% per annum.

(Para 9-20)

Punjab Roadways (Workshop) Rules, 2009 -- Pensionary benefits – Daily wages period – Consideration of -- Deceased was appointed on daily wages on 28.3.1982, termination of services on 25.7.1985 – Ordered to be reinstated with continuity in service with 50% back-wages – Deceased was regularised on 25.04.2003 -- Held, once, the benefit of reinstatement with continuity in service has been granted, then, the service from the year 1982 onwards is to be taken into consideration as qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits.

(Para 3,4 10-16)

A. Central Reserve Police Force Rules 1955, Rule 16, 31 -- Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965, Rule 5 – Constitution of India, Article 14 --  Principle of natural justice -- Temporary employee – Termination of – Show-cause notice – Requirement of -- Allegation of desertion and misconduct -- Desertion is a serious allegation, which cannot be proved without any enquiry -- Reason behind the termination order was the allegation of misconduct – Held, it was necessary and incumbent as well as mandatory for the respondents to hold an enquiry -- Even a probationer has protection against the arbitrary termination and probationer is also entitled to certain protection -- Service of temporary employee cannot be terminated arbitrarily or punitively without applying the principle of natural justice -- Termination order of a temporary employee without enquiry cannot be sustained.

(Para 11-15)

B. Central Reserve Police Force Rules 1955, Rule 16, 31 -- Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965, Rule 5 – Constitution of India, Article 14 --  Temporary employee – Leave without sanction -- Deserter – Misconduct – Termination of -- Petitioner had applied for leave for his own marriage -- Due to compelling circumstances, petitioner left the training centre for undergoing the marriage ceremony -- Date of marriage had already been fixed by his parents and it would have been embarrassment not only for the relatives of the petitioners but more so for the girl side and all the people, who were attending the marriage ceremony -- Rejection of his leave in these circumstances left no choice with the petitioner but to leave as he did – Since, the petitioner did return to join back, the punishment of termination in the present situation is nothing but 'harsh' and therefore deserves to be set aside -- Respondents are directed to take back the petitioner into service forthwith, however, the petitioner shall not be entitled to the back wages.

(Para 20-23)

Haryana Municipal Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1993 -- Municipal Account Code, 1930, Rule 5 – Relinquishment of right to pension -- Non-explanation to illiterate employee – Effect of -- Petitioner rendered service of 30/35 years -- Since the petitioner is illiterate and had merely affixed his thumb impression on the form, it was the duty of the employer/person getting the thumb impression of the petitioner on Form-4, to make the petitioner understand the scope and ambit of the rules as also the implications of giving/not-giving an option for pension under the rules applicable, on the basis of which, the employee giving the option would be entitled to pension and in case of non-giving of option, would not be entitled to pension -- Noting was also required to mention that the entire aspect of the matter had been explained to the employee concerned in the language he understood Form attached by the respondents does not reflect any such noting -- Accordingly, the benefit of the same has to be given to the illiterate petitioner – Writ petition allowed.

(Para 11)

Service matter -- Delay in release of retiral benefits – Paucity of funds – Ground of -- Interest thereupon -- Respondents have not placed on record any fact regarding any impediment in the release of the pensionary benefits of the petitioners after their retirement -- Paucity of funds with the respondent-University, due to which, the pensionary benefits of the petitioners could not be released cannot be accepted – Held, retiral benefits is to be released within a reasonable time and reasonable time fixed by the Full Bench in A.S. Randhawa’s case, 1997(3) SCT 468 is  two months from the date of retirement -- Petitioners held entitled for the interest @ 9% p.a. from the date the benefits became due till the payments were actually released to the petitioners.

(Para 7-16)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, Rule 3.17(a) – Treating service rendered against leave vacancy for pensioner benefits -- Service rendered on a work-charge establishment and paid out of the contingencies is to be counted as qualifying service – Service which the petitioner had rendered was though temporary but the same cannot be treated as less than the workcharge service -- Services from 24.10.1974 till her services were regularized on 01.05.1981, cannot be excluded from the qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits -- Respondents directed to treat it as qualifying service -- Writ filed after a period of 12 years -- Delay can be compensated by limiting the arrears for which the petitioner becomes entitled to a period of three years two months prior to filing of the writ petition.

(Para 6-14)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Release of retiral benefits -- Departmental proceedings after retirement – Permissibility of -- Departmental proceedings initiated against the employees after retirement not permissible -- Respondents directed to release the retiral benefits including gratuity and leave encashment holding the penalty orders are not maintainable after retirement along with interest @ 6% p.a.

(Para 7-9)

A. Constitution of India, Article 311 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 13 -- Acquittal in F.I.R. – Departmental proceedings on allegations, which were subject matter of FIR – Enquiry officer fallen in error and actually shows the intention of the authorities not to initiate the departmental enquiry against the petitioner for any other allegation except the allegations which were subject matter of FIR -- After the evidence has been examined by the trial court and it has recorded its findings acquitting the petitioner, the observations in the enquiry report clearly amounts to re-appreciation of evidence.

(Para 10,11)

B. Constitution of India, Article 311 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 13 -- Acquittal in F.I.R. -- Suspension period of an employee – Submission that during the pendency of the criminal case, where employee is acquitted, should be deemed to be on duty for all intents and purposes – Punishment orders quashed, respondents are directed to consequently, re-fix the pay of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

(Para 14)

Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Rule 16.2(1) -- Service matter – Dismissal from service – Qualifying service for pension – Consideration of -- Petitioner joined service on 16.05.1992, he remained absent from duty from 19.04.2012 and was dismissed on 21.08.2012 -- By the time the dismissal order was passed he had put in more than 20 years of service -- As such, his service period and the length of service rendered by him could not be over-looked and totally ignored by the authorities while dismissing him from service -- Mandate of Rule 16.2(1) of the Rules is that the authorities are bound to take into account the service rendered by the employee before passing any order under the said provision – Petitioner is held to be entitled to the pensionary benefits.

(Para 13,14)

A. Termination of Probationer employee – Regular Enquiry – Requirement of – Interpretation of -- It is well-established position that the material which amounts to stigma need not be contained in the order of termination of the probationer, but might be contained in “any document referred to in the termination order” -- Such reference may inevitably affect the future prospects of the incumbent and if so, the order must be construed as ex-facie stigmatic order of termination.

(Para 8)

B. Stigmatic Termination of probationer -- Regular enquiry –Requirement of – Appellant has been subjected to a formal inquiry before the Committee constituted under statutory regulations to inquire into the allegations bordering on moral turpitude or misconduct committed by the appellant and that inquiry culminated in a finding of guilt against the appellant with recommendation of the Executive Council to proceed against the appellant as per the service rules – Termination order is illegal being ex-facie stigmatic as it has been issued without subjecting the appellant to a regular inquiry as per the service rules.

(Para 7-12)

Service matter -- Reservation for Scheduled Castes (Majhabi Sikh and Balmiki) – Born in Rajasthan – Roots belongs to Punjab – Benefit of reservation -- Petitioner was born in Rajasthan due to Government job of father -- Roots of the petitioner are traceable to the State of Punjab as father of the petitioner belongs to Village in District Amritsar and they own land there --  Petitioner belongs to the SC (Majhabi Sikh and Balmiki) category, stands established from the report itself as also the certificates, which have been issued by the State of Rajasthan and Punjab -- Petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to be originally belonging to Rajasthan – Held, it cannot be said that she is not entitled to the benefit of the said category -- Non-consideration of the claim of the petitioner in the SC (Majhabi Sikh and Balmiki) Category, therefore, is not acceptable – Direction issued to consider her for appointment on the post of Lecturer in Political Science in the reserved category of Scheduled Castes (Majhabi Sikh and Balmiki) at an early date and declare her result within a period of two weeks.

(Para 7-11)

Constitution of India, Article 14,15,16,21 – Scheme for compassionate appointment – Dependency is criteria -- Married daughter – Right of -- Equality cannot be achieved unless there are equal opportunities for all – Non-inclusion of a “married daughter” in the definition of 'dependent family member', would be violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution – Daughter is held, eligible, ordered to give appointment on consideration of her claim.

(Para 11-16)