govt should not take any decisions when case is pending before court
2) all appointment made are subject to final decision taken by courts
Case pending court
In appointing letter stated that all appointments are subject to final judgement of supreme court ( SLP pending)and pending cases before various court,but before final judgement of supreme court PSC AND State government has taken many decisions in notification including posts carry forwarded to next notification , 1) is it lawful take any decisions without inform to court when case pending before court. 2) is subject to final judgement treat as our recruitment is SUB JIDICE . 3) if case SUB JUDICE is there any judgments of supreme court not take any changes or modifications before final judgement annouced of supreme court available. pls inform
Asked 8 years ago in Labour
14 Answers
in our recruitment 1200 posts notified , appointment letters issued to 1200 persons in the year of 2005, and our recruitment is pending before court and final judgement , final judgement pronounced by supreme court in 2015, PSC revised and recast our selection list and published only 800 post, 400 posts reduced ,1) is there any authority to reduce post by PSC Or state government . 2) should not shown all notified posts .pls inform
Asked 8 years ago
1) what is the final judgment passed by SC in 2015?
2) has SC held that only 800 post could be notified
If these several decisions taken by the PSC and the State Government have the potential to interfere with the free course of justice and is attempt on their part to prejudge the merits of the sub-judice case and to usurp the functions of the Supreme Court which is seized with this matter, these decisions are unsustainable and are likely to be recalled.
1. Since there is no stay order passed by the Apex Court or any other court restraining the PSC and the State Government to take decisions in connection with the appointments subject to the outcome of the final decision of the Apex and other Courts, the said acts of the PSC and the State Government is lawful.
2. Your recruitment is subject to the outcome of the final decision to be passed by the Apex Court.
3. The subject matter for which the Apex Court has been approached by the petitioner should be avoided to be dealt with and if dealt with then there should be a mention of the condition "subject to the outcome of the final decision of the Apex Court.
1. You have not mentioned as to what is the litigation for and what judgement has been passed by the Apex Court for parting with proper advice. However, If the apex Court has directed to reduce the vacancy or passed any order for which the vacancies are required to be reduced, then the PSC or the State Government can surely reduce the numbers of the vacancy for which they are authorised to.
2. If the notified posts have been reduced based on the order passed by the Apex court, then the authorities shall have to notify the reduced numbers of posts.
1. Well, if there is no order of stay passed by the courts on fresh recruitment , then there is no illegality on such conditional appointment.
2. Only when court stays further appointment then only sich appointment ,even if conditional. is badi in law and fact and hence unenforceable.
3. Well,without the contents of the order passed by SC in 2015 it is difficult to advise whether the order of supreme court is violated or not.
SIR, SC did not directed to reduce notified post , case No C.A.5099/2006, but PSC reduced posts here direction of SC " view of the foregoing discussions, we direct the respondents to fill up the rest of the posts including the posts of Municipal Commissioners Grade-III, Asstt. Commercial Tax Officers, Asstt. Labour Officers in executive cadre and Asstt. Section Officers in non executive cadre, which are vacant, as per President Order, 1975 and the Government orders in consonance with the Presidential Order which were prevailing in the year 1999 when the Advertisement was issued. in 2005 total 1085 posts notified and all are joined , after this SC judgement PSC REVISED selection list and announced only 800 posts , citing reasons 400 posts carry forwarded not notification, by revised list 50 employees lost their 12 year serving posts. pls inform revised and reduced post by PSC is lawful and is it according to S Cjudgement
Asked 8 years ago
1. Without being provided with complete information, it is difficult to answer properly.
2. Has the said 400 posts been reduced to accommodate those Municipal Commissioner Grade -III etc. for filling up those posts as per the SC Order?
3. However, the employees who have lost their jobs because of the said reduction of posts can very well file a Writ Petition before the High Court first and in case of not getting favourable order can approach the Apex court for justice.
You should file writ in the HC to challenge reduction of 400 posts
SC did not direct reduction of posts
Employees with over 10 years service have been left jobless
ok
Until unless, the govt is not restrained, the govt can go ahead.Normally courts do not interfere in the administrative matters of the govt unless it is ultravires
1) is there any authority to reduce post by PSC Or state government
The reasons for such modification may be because of the instructions in the judgment by the court, have you seen the notification or gazette publication or memorandum of the government in this regard.
. 2) should not shown all notified posts .pls inform
The notification might have been missed out of your notice or the government would not hav issued
after this SC judgement PSC REVISED selection list and announced only 800 posts , citing reasons 400 posts carry forwarded not notification, by revised list 50 employees lost their 12 year serving posts. pls inform revised and reduced post by PSC is lawful and is it according to S Cjudgement
In my opinion the government followed the judgment by the apex court hence there is no contravention seen in this regard.
The reduction in post do not appear to be unlawful.
1. The word 'subjudice' is a misnomer, it does not exist anywhere.
2. The mere pendency of the writ petition or SLP in the Supreme Court does not act to forbear the government from making an appointment or take other decisions in the process of recruitment. There has to be a stay order from the court to stop the govt from doing that. In the absence of such a stay order the govt is free to act.
SC had not ordered the reduction of posts. The govt reduced the posts on its own. So the remedy for the aggrieved persons is to file a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the reduction of posts.