https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294060 The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Court directed the appointment of the Appellant as the Head of the School, replacing Respondent No. 4, within four weeks. It held that the Appellant was the rightful claimant to the post based on seniority and qualifications, stating that the appointment of Respondent No. 4 was erroneous and infringed upon the Appellant's rights. No costs were awarded due to the absence of the Respondents during the proceedings. en-us Wed, 13 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Mar 2021 09:30:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294060 The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Court directed the appointment of the Appellant as the Head of the School, replacing Respondent No. 4, within four weeks. It held that the Appellant was the rightful claimant to the post based on seniority and qualifications, stating that the appointment of Respondent No. 4 was erroneous and infringed upon the Appellant's rights. No costs were awarded due to the absence of the Respondents during the proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 13 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294060