9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of constitutional right to equality of opportunity in government employment. Analysis: The petitioner, a trained machine man, was terminated from government service in 1954. Subsequently, the petitioner faced a ban on his re-employment in government service. The petitioner contended that this ban discriminated against him in government employment opportunities. The High Court dismissed his petition, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The respondents argued that the petitioner was appointed as a purely temporary hand and his services were terminated in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949. They denied imposing a ban on the petitioner, stating that he could apply for government service, which would be considered on its merits. The respondents claimed that the ban was a departmental instruction for future guidance and did not prevent the petitioner from applying for government posts. The Court noted the misleading and disingenuous nature of the respondents' affidavit, which failed to address the specific ban mentioned by the petitioner. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's right to equal opportunity in government employment, as guaranteed under Art. 16(1) of the Constitution, had been violated by the imposition of the ban without due process or justification related to his suitability for employment. The Court held that the petitioner had been unfairly treated and directed the respondents to lift the ban against him, allowing him to apply for government positions on merit. The Court also awarded costs to the petitioner. In conclusion, the Court found in favor of the petitioner, highlighting the importance of upholding constitutional rights to equality of opportunity in government employment and ensuring fair treatment of individuals seeking government positions.
|
