TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Legal Assistant's Reversion Challenged Under Article 311: Court Emphasizes Performance over Conspiracy</h1> The appellant challenged his reversion from the post of Legal Assistant, alleging conspiracy and invoking legal protection under Article 311 for temporary ... - Issues:1. Reversion of the appellant from the post of Legal Assistant.2. Allegations of conspiracy and poor performance leading to reversion.3. Legal protection under Article 311 for temporary government servants.4. Examination of the motive behind reversion orders.5. Judicial interpretations regarding reversion and discharge of government servants.Detailed Analysis:1. The appellant filed an appeal against the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment dismissing his writ petition challenging his reversion from the post of Legal Assistant. He was initially appointed on an ad hoc basis in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, but was later reverted to his parent office. The appellant alleged a conspiracy involving various parties leading to his reversion.2. The reversion was based on the appellant's poor performance as a Legal Assistant. The Secretary of the Law Department denied the conspiracy allegations made by the appellant. The Deputy Advocate General highlighted the appellant's inadequate legal knowledge and inappropriate behavior, such as making reckless allegations and overreaching his authority. The Deputy Commissioner also expressed dissatisfaction with the appellant's work.3. The appellant contended that even temporary government servants are entitled to the protection of Article 311 if reversion is considered a form of punishment. However, the court found that the reversion was due to the appellant's unsuitability for the post, not as a punitive measure. The court emphasized that temporary appointments do not confer a right to the position.4. The judgment discussed the complexities of examining the motive behind reversion orders for government servants. Different judicial opinions exist on whether such actions should be considered punitive or administrative. The court suggested a need for a comprehensive review of the legal framework to avoid unnecessary litigation and confusion regarding reversion and discharge of government employees.5. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal without costs, emphasizing that reversion of a probationer or temporary servant cannot be questioned unless mala fides are proven in making the decision. The judgment highlighted the need for clarity in legal interpretations to streamline the process of handling cases related to the discharge or reversion of government employees.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
