9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to the order reverting the plaintiff to a lower post. 2. Interpretation of rules regarding reversion of direct recruits. 3. Applicability of service conditions in case of termination. 4. Decision of the trial court versus the decision of the High Court. Analysis: The plaintiff, a direct recruit to the post of Assistant Deputy Educational Inspector (A.D.E.I.), challenged an order reverting him to the post of a primary teacher. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, declaring the reversion illegal and granting a decree for salary. The State of Maharashtra appealed to the High Court, which reversed the trial court's decision and dismissed the suit. The High Court acknowledged that the plaintiff was a direct recruit and not a departmental promotee. It was established that a direct recruit cannot be reverted to a lower post, unlike a promotee. The High Court's consideration of the temporary nature of the plaintiff's appointment and the possibility of termination based on service conditions was deemed irrelevant since no such termination had occurred. The Supreme Court found the High Court's judgment unsustainable, emphasizing that the reversion order was invalid due to the plaintiff's direct recruitment status. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's decision, and restored the trial court's judgment, with each party bearing their costs. This case primarily dealt with the fundamental principle that a direct recruit cannot be reverted to a lower post, unlike a promotee. The High Court's focus on the temporary nature of the plaintiff's appointment and the potential for termination based on service conditions was deemed irrelevant since no such termination had taken place. The Supreme Court emphasized that the reversion order was unsustainable due to the plaintiff's direct recruitment status, leading to the overturning of the High Court's decision and the restoration of the trial court's ruling in favor of the plaintiff.
|
