January 4, 2019

4 Important Supreme Court of India Judgments Pronounced Today [Friday, January 4, 2019]

1. Ku. Bhawana v. State of Maharashtra

Service Law - Seniority - Assistant Teacher in Secondary School - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - Rules 2 (j), 2 (k), 6, 12(3) - “trained graduate” - “trained teacher” - Qualification of the Teachers - Seniority List - Guidelines for fixation of seniority of teachers in the primary schools - Guidelines for fixation of seniority of teachers in the secondary schools Junior Colleges of Education and Junior College classes attached to secondary schools and Senior Colleges.

The Scheme of the Rules, 1981 of which reference has been made cl terms of the guidelines laid down for fixation of seniority of teachers in Schedule ‘F’ annexed to Rule 12 of Rules, 1981. As regards fixation of seniority in the primary school is concerned, it is based on the date of joining service and continuance officiation. At the same time, fixation of seniority in the secondary schools, junior colleges of education and junior college classes attached to secondary schools and senior colleges, it has been graded into separate categories commencing from A­H, and as regards category ‘A and B’ are concerned, the seniority is determined on the basis of the date of appointment to the respective posts and those who are holders of various qualifications falling in categories C to H, their seniority is determined on the basis of total service rendered by the person in a particular cadre in school or junior college of education for the purpose of seniority and for promotion as indicated under Note 5, the rule making authority was conscious of this fact giving preference in descending order to the holders of category ‘C, D, E or F’, as the case may be, as indicated in Note 4. As a consequence thereof, a person who is a member of category ‘F’ or ‘G’, as the case may be, would in no manner can rank senior to the teaching staff who is member of category ‘C’, ‘D’ or ‘E’ based on their continuous service rendered in the category to which the person belongs. [Para 9]



Petitioner's Advocate : Pawanshree Agrawal
Respondent's Advocate : Nitin Bhardwaj
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi


2. Badri Vishal Pandey v. Rajesh Mittal

Contempt of Court - The contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked on the basis of impressions, when the order of the Court does not contain any direction - The contempt would be made out when there is willful disobedience to the orders of this Court.

View Judgment : http://bit.ly/ContP817of2018
Case Number : Conmt. Pet. (C) No. 817 of 2018 04-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Prashant Bhushan
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud



3. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kalyan Singh

Criminal P.C. 1973 - S. 482 - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 307, 294 r/w. 34 - High Court has committed a grave error in quashing the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC solely on the ground that the original Complainant and the accused have settled the dispute - Despite any settlement between the Complainant on the one hand and the accused on the other, the criminal proceedings for the offences under Section 307 of the IPC cannot be quashed, as the offence under Section 307 is a non-­compoundable offence.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 14 of 2019 04-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : C.D. Singh
Respondent's Advocate : Malini Poduval
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. R. Shah
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. R. Shah

4. Champa Lal Dhakar v. Naval Singh Rajput

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 147, 148, 451, 325 / 149, 307 / 149, 294 / 149 & 506 / 149 - Attempt to murder - Considering the material/evidence on record and the medical certificate and the injuries sustained by the complainant, it cannot be said that the intention of the accused was to cause death of the complainant. Therefore, as rightly observed by the High Court, a charge under Section 325/149 ought to have been framed. Therefore, the High Court has not committed any error in setting aside the order passed by the trial Court insofar as framing the charge under Section 307 of the IPC.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1931 of 2009 04-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Anil Shrivastav
Respondent's Advocate : Mridula Ray Bharadwaj
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. R. Shah
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. R. Shah
Previous Post
Next Post