Category: Service Law

Whether termination during PROBATION could be viewed as a punitive action?

mere continuation of service beyond the period of PROBATION does not amount to confirmation unless it was so specifically provided. The other line, though in very few cases, but, has been taken by this Court is that where there is provision in the Rules for initial PROBATION and extension thereof, a maximum period of such extension is also provided beyond which it is not permissible to extend PROBATION.

Dayal Saran Sanan Vs Union of India and others-16/01/1980


Constitution of India, 1950—Article 311(2)—Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965—Rule 19(1)—Natural justice—Petitioner dismissed from service because of conviction by Criminal Court—In appeal dismissal was modified to one of compulsory retirement—No notice was issued before passing order of dismissal—No summary inquiry was held and no opportunity was given before passing order of dismissal or of compulsory retirement—Order liable to be set aside.

সরকারি চাকরি আইন ২০১৮-Sarkari Chakri Aain-2018

“‌‌বেতন” অর্থ একজন কর্মচারী প্রতি মাসে বেতন, ওভারসিজ পে, বিশেষ বেতন, ব্যক্তিগত বেতন বা সরকার কর্তৃক বেতন হিসাবে বিশেষভাবে শ্রেণিভুক্ত অন্য যে কোনো প্রকার আয় বাবদ যে অর্থ প্রাপ্য হন; তবে কোনো পদে স্থায়ীভাবে বা অফিসিয়েটিং হিসাবে অধিষ্ঠিত থাকিবার কারণে বা কোনো কর্মবিভাগে তাহার অবস্থানের কারণে বিশেষ বেতন বা তাহার ব্যক্তিগত যোগ্যতার কারণে মঞ্জুরিকৃত বেতন ইহার অন্তর্ভুক্ত হইবে না;


The UN Dispute Tribunal hears and passes judgement on an application filed by an individual(employee),  against the Order of  Secretary- General of the United Nations for non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment. The terms “contract” and “terms of appointment” include all pertinent regulations and rules and all relevant administrative issuances in force at the time of alleged non- compliance.


No.F.1(1)/70-JUDICIAL (I):- In exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution read with the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affair’s Notification No.1/2/70/DH(S), dated the 29th May, 1970 as amended by Notification No.F.1/2/70-DH(S), dated the 25th July, 1970 and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi in consultation with the High Court of Delhi is pleased to make the following rules

State of U.P. and another Vs Johri Mal-21/04/2004

The age old tradition on the part of the States in appointing the District Government counsel on the basis of the recommendations of the District Collector in consultation with the District Judge is based on certain principles. Whereas the District Judge is supposed to know the merit, competence and capability of the concerned lawyers for discharging their duties, the District Magistrate is supposed to know their conduct outside the Court vis-a-vis the victims of offences, public officers, witnesses etc. The District Magistrate is also supposed to know about the conduct of the Government counsel as also their integrity.

Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others-20/09/1990

This was done in spite of the clear provisions in the L. R. Manual laying down detailed procedure for appointment, termination and renewal of tenure and the requirement to first consider the existing incumbent for renewal of his tenure and to take steps for a fresh appointment in his place only if the existing incumbent is not found suitable in comparison to more suitable persons available for appointment at the time of renewal

The Secretary, Ministry of Defence vs Babita Puniya & Ors-17/7/2010


Courts are indeed conscious of the limitations which issues of national security and policy impose on the judicial evolution of doctrine in matters relating to the Armed forces. For this reason, we have noticed that the engagement of women in the Combat Arms has been specifically held to be a matter of policy by the judgment of the Delhi High Court and which is not in question in the present appeals.

SC can`t direct Govt to provide reservation and States are not bound to make reservation for ST and SC in matters of promotions.


Mukesh Kumar & Anr. Versus The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. February 07, 2020-The Supreme Court by a non-reportable judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1226 of 2020 has held that states are not bound to provide reservation in appointments and there is no fundamental right to claim quota in promotions.”In view of the law laid down by this court, there is no doubt that the state government is not bound to make reservations. There is no fundamental right which inheres in an individual to claim reservation in promotions,” a bench of justices L Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta said. The Controversy in the above Appeals pertains to the reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotions in the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in Public Works Department, Government of Uttarakhand. 

Apex Court is in favour of disclosing marks of Main Exam before conducting viva-voce in Judicial Services-13/12/2019


Pranav Verma & Others Vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh & anr-As regards the petitioners’ plea that marks of the Main Exam should be disclosed before conducting viva-voce, we are of the considered opinion that such a practice may not insulate the desired transparency, rather will invite criticism of likelihood of bias or favourtism.As the written examination assesses knowledge and intellectual abilities of a candidate, the interview is aimed at assessing their overall intellectual and personal qualities which are imperative to hold a judicial post.