9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the exemption from Employment Exchange sponsorship, compliance with constitutional provisions for public employment, and the legality of the respondent's termination. Exemption from Employment Exchange sponsorship: The judgment discusses the Government Order (G.O.) granting exemption from sponsorship by the Employment Exchange for voluntary workers seeking regular posts. The G.O. specifically exempted the sponsorship requirement but not the selection process itself. The Court emphasized that the State must comply with constitutional provisions and statutory requirements in public employment, and any appointment made in violation of these would be illegal. Compliance with constitutional provisions for public employment: The Court highlighted that the State, as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, is obligated to follow the constitutional scheme for public employment outlined in Articles 14 and 16. The judgment emphasized that the G.O. providing exemption from Employment Exchange sponsorship did not absolve the State from complying with constitutional and statutory requirements for appointments. It was clarified that the respondent's failure to appear for the written test and fulfill her duties justified her termination, and the direction by the High Court to consider her case based on the G.O. was deemed unsustainable. Legality of the respondent's termination: The respondent, a Balwadi Teacher, was terminated due to unauthorized absence and failure to fulfill her duties. Despite requesting consideration for a typist position or medical leave, the respondent's absence and lack of satisfactory explanation led to her termination. The Court held that the respondent had no legal right to continue in the post, and the High Court's direction to consider her case based on the G.O. was set aside as inapplicable to the circumstances. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were awarded.
|
