Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Education law

NAVIN KUMAR & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

Because this Court in Devesh Sharma held that B.Ed is not a valid qualification for primary teachers and quashed the NCTE notification that had treated B.Ed as such, candidates with B.Ed who were appointed after 11.08.2023 and whose appointments were subject to the outcome of pending writ petitions were rightly held ineligible; therefore the Chhattisgarh High Court did not err in quashing those appointments and the SLPs are dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Eligibility for appointment
  • Teacher qualifications
  • B.ed. vs d.el.ed.
  • Prospective operation of judgments
Read case analysis
Service law

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS versus DINESH SINGH AND ANOTHER

01.11.2018 was relevant only for age-related eligibility under Rule 9(1)(a)(ii); for Rule 9(1)(a)(iii) (pending or contemplated disciplinary proceedings) the relevant date is the date of consideration (the date on which the Committee recommended names under Rule 9(2), in the facts 31.08.2019); as on that date disciplinary action was contemplated against the respondent and therefore he was rightly held ineligible for inclusion in Register A-1; Division Bench order set aside and Single Judge order affirmed.

Source excerpt

  • Eligibility for appointment
  • Disciplinary proceedings
  • Cut-off date for eligibility
  • Interpretation of service rules
Read case analysis
Education

ANAND YADAV & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

M.Ed. is a master’s degree recognised by UGC and NCTE and, while M.Ed. and M.A. (Education) are distinct (professional vs academic), the NCTE expert committee and the employing authority validly concluded that for the purpose of appointment to Assistant Professor (Education) both qualifications are acceptable; the High Court erred in quashing the corrigendum and substituting its view for that of the expert authorities.

Source excerpt

  • Equivalence of degrees
  • Eligibility for appointment
  • Judicial review
  • Ugc and ncte regulation
Read case analysis
Service law

PARVAIZAHMAD PARRY versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS.

Candidate having B.Sc. with Forestry as a major subject and M.Sc.(Forestry) possesses the prescribed qualification as per recruitment rules and should not be excluded from appointment.

Source excerpt

  • Eligibility for appointment
  • Qualification requirements
  • Interpretation of recruitment rules
Read case analysis
Service law

CHARULATA BEHERA versus PRAVATI PARIDA & ORS.

Appointment of respondent no.1 was illegal as she did not have the eligibility qualification for appointment to the post; Division Bench erred in allowing writ appeal on technicalities without examining relevant eligibility facts; appellant's appointment revived.

Source excerpt

  • Appointment of anganwadi worker
  • Eligibility for appointment
  • Exercise of writ jurisdiction
  • Perpetuation of illegality
Read case analysis
Judicial service

SASIDHAR REDDY SURA versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

The recruitment Rules governing appointment to District and Sessions Judge provide only a maximum age limit and do not specify any minimum age; therefore, denial of appointment to the appellant for not completing 35 years of age was not justified, and recommendations of the Justice Shetty Commission cannot be enforced unless incorporated in the Rules.

Source excerpt

  • Eligibility for appointment
  • District and sessions judge
  • Minimum age requirement
  • Recruitment rules
Read case analysis
Service law

RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Appellant did not possess the requisite educational qualification (B.Ed) as on the last date of submission of the application and was thus ineligible; appointment obtained was by misrepresentation, and termination was justified. Benefit to appellant would violate equality and statutory recruitment rules.

Source excerpt

  • Eligibility for appointment
  • Selection process
  • Termination for lack of qualification
  • Doctrine of equality
Read case analysis
Service law

STATE OF ORISSA & ANR. versus MAMATA MOHANTY

A teacher appointed without the prescribed qualifications and not through proper procedure cannot claim the benefit of grant-in-aid or UGC pay scales unless the deficiency is subsequently remedied. Relief cannot be granted for appointments that are bad in law; delay and laches bar relief where no valid explanation is provided. Relaxation of eligibility without statutory authority is impermissible. Orders made per incuriam are not binding. UGC pay scale cannot be granted prior to acquiring higher qualification or prior to benefit of grant-in-aid scheme.

Source excerpt

  • Eligibility for appointment
  • Grant-in-aid scheme
  • Ugc pay scales
  • Relaxation of qualifications
  • Appointments without advertisement
  • Delay and laches
Read case analysis
Service law

ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY REP. BY REGISTRAR versus SECY. TO GOVT. INFN. & TOURISM DEPT. & ORS.

A master's degree obtained through Open University System without possession of a bachelor's degree contravenes Regulation 2 of the 1985 UGC Regulations and is invalid for purposes of appointment to the post of Principal; DEC’s retrospective recognition cannot cure this illegality, and UGC Regulations prevail over the Open University Act in determining educational standards.

Source excerpt

  • Eligibility for appointment
  • Validity of degree through distance education
  • Ugc regulations
  • Open university system
Read case analysis
Service law

TRIVEDI HIMANSHU GHANSHYAMBHAI versus AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

The appellant fulfilled the eligibility criteria of ten years administrative experience based on endorsement from supervising officer, scrutiny by committees, past precedent with employees in technical posts promoted to administrative posts, and lack of timely objection from respondents. The employer's judgment on eligibility prevails unless mala fide or illegality is proven. High Court was not justified in quashing the appointment under Article 226, nor in entertaining the writ petition from unsuccessful candidates.

Source excerpt

  • Eligibility for appointment
  • Administrative experience
  • Judicial review under article 226
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.