TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Supreme Court addresses government favoritism in appointments, emphasizes adherence to rules and rectifying seniority disputes.</h1> <h3>Ram Ganesh Tripathi and Ors. Versus State of U.P. and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court criticized government favoritism in appointments, highlighting violations of recruitment rules and seniority disputes. The Court ... - Issues:Government favoritism and nepotism in appointments, Violation of recruitment rules, Regularization of ad hoc employees, Seniority disputes, Legitimacy of selection grade denialAnalysis:The Supreme Court addressed the issue of government favoritism and nepotism in appointments, criticizing the government for abusing its powers to favor ad hoc promotees allegedly related to influential individuals. The Court highlighted the violation of recruitment rules, specifically the U.P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules, where the government made ad hoc appointments instead of following the prescribed recruitment procedures. The Court emphasized the importance of setting right the wrongs committed by the government and ensuring adherence to the rules in recruitment processes.The judgment delved into the regularization of ad hoc employees and the subsequent seniority disputes arising from such actions. The Court discussed how the government attempted to regularize the services of ad hoc appointees, leading to conflicts with directly recruited candidates. The Court analyzed the statutory rules, particularly Rule 21A, governing the regularization of ad hoc employees and emphasized that seniority should be determined based on the date of regular appointment, not the date of ad hoc appointment.Furthermore, the judgment addressed the legitimacy of denying selection grade benefits to certain employees despite their seniority. The Court scrutinized government orders granting selection grade to ad hoc employees while overlooking the entitlement of regular appointees. The Court emphasized the need for fairness and adherence to rules in granting promotions and benefits, directing the government to reconsider the seniority and selection grade entitlement of the concerned employees in accordance with the established rules and orders.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the government to rectify the seniority issues, quash the problematic government orders, and reconsider the selection grade benefits for the appellants and respondents. The Court emphasized the importance of following statutory rules and ensuring fairness in employment practices, instructing the government to complete the necessary actions within a specified timeframe.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
