Showing posts with label COURT ORDERS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label COURT ORDERS. Show all posts
Sunday, July 5, 2026
State can’t undo 33-year-old appointment: Gujarat High Court
State can’t undo 33-year-old appointment: Gujarat High Court
July 5, 2026, 01.02 AM IST
Ahmedabad: 05.07.2026
The Gujarat HighCourt has quashed a state govt order cancelling an appointment of a teacher 33 years after he was given the job and some 17 years after his death, and stopping the pension being given to his widow.
In this case, Harshad Bhavsar, along with five others, was appointed as a teacher in its school by Sugyan Education Trust in 1988. After ascertaining he got requisite qualification for the post, his appointment was regularised by the district education officer in 1989. After serving for 16 years, Bhavsar died in 2004. The education department began paying family pension to Bhavsar’s widow, Manorama.
In 2021, the director of schools cancelled the appointment of six teachers and a librarian of the school, including that of Bhavsar, withdrew grant benefits, cancelled employee numbers and stopped salary payments under the Direct Salary Scheme.
The govt action was initiated following a complaint made in 2015 by the husband of then school principal, alleging that the appointments had been made in violation of recruitment rules. The govt cancelled the appointments on the grounds that they were based on forged documents, made without obtaining a no-objection certificate, without publishing advertisements and without seeking names from the employment exchange, causing a financial loss of over Rs 6 crore to the exchequer.
The school trust and the affected employees, including Bhavsar’s widow, challenged the order before HC in 2021. A single-judge bench quashed the govt’s s decision, ruling that appointments could not be cancelled after more than three decades.
However, the state govt appealed appealed against the order regarding the revocation of Bhavsar’s appointment.
Dismissing the appeal, a division bench of N S Sanjay Gowda and Justice J L Odedra said, “If an appointment was made in the year 1988, was regularised in 1989, the same cannot be subjected to a challenge or could be doubted by the state nearly 33 years after the appointment was made.”
The bench further said, “The state, after granting a family pension to the widow of the employee, is now doubting the very appointment itself, which its own officials had regularised. The learned single judge, in our view, has rightly quashed the order of cancellation and held that the state could not exercise its powers to cancel the appointment at such a belated stage.”
Thursday, June 25, 2026
Supreme Court dismisses plea raising concerns that EWS candidates can't afford private medical college fees
Supreme Court dismisses plea raising concerns that EWS candidates can't afford private medical college fees
The Court refused to interfere with a Rajasthan High Court ruling that EWS reservation applies only at the stage of admission and does not entitle candidates to subsidised fees in private medical colleges.

Supreme Court
Published on:
24 Jun 2026, 1:37 pm
The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea questioning how the ₹8 lakh income ceiling for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) candidates could be reconciled with the high fees demanded by private medical colleges, which could run up to ₹25 lakh annually [Harshvardhan Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors].
A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi upheld a Rajasthan High Court ruling, which had found the fee structure fixed by the State Fee Regulatory Committee to be legally valid.
During the hearing today, Justice Nagarathna also observed that private colleges cannot be expected to offer its courses at subsidised fees like government colleges.
“You cannot say private educational institutions shall charge the same as government institution. That cannot be. One person cannot come and say that private is exorbitant, so make it like government. These are self-financing institutes. For government ones...they get grant (subsidies) from the State. There is a vital difference,” the judge observed.
Justice BV Nagarathna & Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Referring to established precedent, Justice Nagarathna added,
“Please see TMA Pai (caselaw). Capitation fee is banned...but that does not mean general college fees cannot be taken.”
The Court also cautioned against undermining the role of private institutions in medical education.
“Assistance of private medical colleges to the State in the field of medical education will stop then...We need doctors,” said Justice Nagarathna.
On the issue of affordability when it comes to private college fee structures, she remarked,
“If you are unable to pay...get scholarship...subvention...”
The plea had been filed by an EWS candidate who submitted that tuition fees in private medical colleges in Rajasthan range between ₹18.9 lakh and ₹25 lakh per year. This, he argued, effectively renders the EWS quota ineffective in practice, as candidates within the ₹8 lakh income bracket cannot realistically afford such education.
The Rajasthan High Court had rejected this contention, noting that the fee structure had been fixed by the State Fee Regulatory Committee in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka.
It had held that EWS reservation applies only at the stage of admission and does not create any entitlement to subsidised or differential fees in private colleges.
The High Court had further observed that the absence of any statutory provision mandating fee concessions meant that high fees, by themselves, could not be treated as a denial of EWS reservation, even if they limited practical access for eligible candidates.
Today the Supreme Court refused to interfere with this ruling.
“We don't find reason to intervene with the High Court order. Dismissed. Question of law, if any, is kept open," the top court said.
We need doctors in this country’: SC dismisses plea seeking cap on private medical college fees
We need doctors in this country’: SC dismisses plea seeking cap on private medical college fees
Court upholds Rajasthan HC order, refuses directions on fee regulation despite concerns over affordability for EWS candidates.

Petitioner argued annual fees of up to ₹25 lakh undermine EWS reservation benefits; court says issue falls within regulators’ domain.(File Photo | ANI)
Updated on:
25 Jun 2026, 7:56 am
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with the fee structure of the private medical colleges in Rajasthan, observing that “we need doctors in this country” while dismissing a petition that called the charges exorbitant.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi heard a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging a Rajasthan High Court order. The HC had earlier rejected a plea by a medical aspirant claiming annual tuition fees in private colleges range from `18.90 lakh to `25 lakh, which, he said, was inconsistent with the `8 lakh income cap for EWS reservation.
“We need doctors in this country,” said the top court while refusing to entertain a plea which alleged that the fee structure in private medical colleges in Rajasthan was exorbitant.
The counsel argued that high fees made MBBS unaffordable for EWS candidates despite quotas and urged the court to direct the state and Centre to cap fees at affordable levels.
The bench, however, declined to step in and refused to pass any order on the plea. “Medical education requires infrastructure, faculty, and equipment. Fee fixation is a policy decision for regulators,” it said while dismissing the plea.
Noting that fee regulation falls within the domain of the state authorities and bodies like the Medical Council, the SC clarified that judicial interference is warranted only if there is manifest illegality or arbitrariness, which was not shown here in this present case. “One person cannot say that it is exorbitant in private institutions and make it on par with government institutions,” the bench observed.
The bench observed that one has the option to avail a scholarship. “We need doctors in this country,” it said. “We don’t find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the high court. The special leave petition is dismissed. Question of law, if any, is kept open,” the bench said.
With this, the SC upheld the High Court’s order. No directions were issued to the Centre, Rajasthan government, or MCI/NMC on fee caps.
The petitioner is a general category candidate, who possesses an EWS certificate. He felt aggrieved that the counseling board allocated him a seat in a private college despite he giving preference for 73 colleges.
He argued that EWS students were charged the same fee as other general category students, thus making medical education unaffordable to the EWS students. He also relied on a National Medical Commission notice, which stated that 50 per cent of seats in private colleges should be at par with government colleges.
EWS student allotted general MBBS seat, college demands ₹19L annual fee
EWS student allotted general MBBS seat, college demands ₹19L annual fee
Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesofindia.com 25.06.2026
New Delhi : Supreme Court on Wednesday said that private medical colleges can not be prevented from charging higher fees than govt ones and forcing them to do so would result in their closure and harm to medical education.
The bench while hearing a plea by an EWS student who was allotted a general category seat in a private medical college where he would be required to pay nearly ₹19 lakh as annual tuition fee, noted that the private medical colleges are barred from taking capitation fees and are selffinancing.
“The annual tuition fee cannot be the same in a private medical college and a govt one. In the self-financing private colleges, every expense is to be borne by the colleges whereas the govt subsidies the expenses in the colleges under it”, said Justice Nagarathna.
“The private colleges are also contributing in the field of higher education, including in the medical stream. If they are asked to take fees at govt rate, then they will close down and the medical education would suffer. If other states have implemented the EWS quota and if Rajasthan has not done it, the courts cannot direct private colleges to reduce fees”, she said.
The petitioner whose parents have an annual income of less than ₹8 lakh, cleared NEET-UG 2025, said that he was “arbitrarily” allotted a general category seat in a private medical college and that ₹19 lakh being demanded of him was way beyond his means. His counsel said, “Non implementation of the mandatory 10% EWS reservation by providing only 12 EWS seats in the college having 150 seats diluting the constitutional mandate and prejudicing the Petitioner who was given admission in unreserved category despite having validly applied in EWS category.
Saturday, June 13, 2026
Dismissal from service should be reserved for grave misconduct: SC
Dismissal from service should be reserved for grave misconduct: SC
The Supreme Court ruled that dismissal from service should be imposed only in cases of grave misconduct, stressing its severe impact on employees and their families.
The court set aside a woman's dismissal as disproportionate and directed authorities to consider a lesser penalty
BY PTI PUBLISHED DATE - 11 JUNE 2026, 08:52 PM
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said a disciplinary authority must be very careful before imposing the severest form of punishment of dismissal from service as it has a devastating effect not only on the dismissed employee but also on their dependant family members.
The apex court said dismissal from service must remain reserved for cases where the misconduct is of the most serious nature where elements of synthetic consideration would be undesirable and inappropriate.
Powered By VidCrunch
The observations came from a bench of justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh which delivered its verdict on an appeal filed by a woman, who was employed with the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and was dismissed from service.
“Dismissal is ordinarily justified where the misconduct is of such gravity that continuance of the employee would be wholly incompatible with discipline, trust or institutional functioning,” the bench said.
The top court said cases involving corruption, illegal gratification, moral turpitude, misappropriation, acts causing substantial loss to the employer or conduct showing complete unfitness for continued service stand on a different footing.
It observed where the misconduct does not involve corruption, moral turpitude, financial misappropriation or proved loss to the employer, and where there is long service without much blemish, the disciplinary authority must carefully examine whether any lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice.
Dealing with the case, it said, “With respect to the punishment of dismissal which we consider wholly disproportionate to the charges proved, the competent authority shall consider any punishment other than the ultimate penalty of dismissal from service, after considering the appellant’s long service, past record, age, nature of misconduct, absence or presence of financial loss, and other relevant circumstances”.
The apex court set aside the dismissal order of July 2017 as “wholly disproportionate”, while leaving the finding of misconduct undisturbed.
It noted that the appellant had joined the service in April 1985 and in September 2006, she was placed under suspension pending enquiry.
It further noted that the suspension order alleged acts of indiscipline, insubordination, disobedience of superior officers, tampering with official documents and negligence.
The bench said period of suspension continued for nearly 11 years and the authority passed the order in July 2017 dismissing her from service.
The top court was dealing with her appeal challenging an April 2024 verdict of the Bombay High Court’s Nagpur bench which had upheld the order of dismissal.
“Dismissal from service is the severest form of penalty which can be inflicted on a delinquent employee in service jurisprudence. It brings the relationship of employer and employee to an end permanently, and ordinarily deprives the employee of the incidents of past service, including retiral benefits,” the bench said.
It said dismissal from service does not lead merely to the loss of existing source of income for the employee but also for the dependent family members.
“Thus, it will have a devastating effect not only on the dismissed employee but also on all those who are dependant on the employee,” the bench said.
“Because of the severity of its impact not only on the employee but also to his dependents, the disciplinary authority must be very careful in seeking to impose the severest form of punishment of dismissal,” it said.
The bench said it was not minimizing the importance of discipline in an office establishment. It said in this case, the allegations substantially appear to arise out of internal office functioning and service-related conflict and did not play out in the public domain.
While partly allowing the appeal, the bench also held that imposition of the second punishment of treating the suspension undergone as punishment was not permissible.
Besides other directions, it said the competent authority shall decide the service and monetary consequences of the suspension period in accordance with the regulations, including payment of subsistence allowance in terms of the court’s observations.
The bench said the authority shall within four weeks from the date of receipt of its judgment issue a proper show-cause notice to the appellant as regards the penalty proposed to be imposed other than dismissal, having regard to the gravity of the misconduct.
It directed the authority to pass a reasoned order on penalty within eight weeks. The bench noted that since the appellant has already crossed the age of superannuation, no direction for reinstatement can be issued at this stage.
“The monetary and retiral consequences, if any, shall abide by the fresh order to be passed by the competent authority in terms of this judgment and the applicable regulations,” it said.
HC: RTI can’t be used for obtaining personal info
HC: RTI can’t be used for obtaining personal info
TIMES NEWS NETWORK 13.06.2026
Bengaluru : The Right to Information (RTI) Act cannot be employed as a mechanism for obtaining personal information merely for advancing a private claim, the high court has ruled. Justice Suraj Govindaraj made the observation in a recent judgment while dismissing a petition filed by Bengaluru resident S Savithramma.
She moved Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) for details of the assets and liabilities of SP Jayapal, who worked as deputy controller at the central KSRTC office during 1990-2002, saying he fraudulently obtained a sale deed from her, and she required the documents for pending civil suits.
On May 6, 2025, KIC rejected her application, citing the information sought by her fell under personal category and could not be disclosed as it was exempted under RTI Act.
Challenging the order, Savithramma approached high court, arguing that Jayapal is a public servant and, therefore, any immovable property acquired by him, together with the corresponding disclosure of assets and liabilities, should be revealed.
Justice Govindaraj, however, rejected the argument. “The right to privacy is now recognised as a constitutionally protected right. Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act represents a statutory manifestation of that protection in the context of access to information. Therefore, before directing disclosure of personal information, the authority must be satisfied that public interest sought to be served is of such magnitude as to outweigh privacy interests of the individual. No such circumstances have been shown in the case,” he noted.
Thursday, June 4, 2026
Can bar overqualified person from job: SC
Can bar overqualified person from job: SC
‘Rationale Both Reasonable And Equitable’
AmitAnand.Choudhary@timesofindia.com 04.06.2026
New Delhi : Sometimes over qualification becomes a disqualification. At a time when highly qualified people, including PhD holders, are competing for class IV govt jobs, the Supreme Court has said a person could be disqualified for a job if he holds a qualification beyond the maximum prescribed qualification. Noting that an employer’s need to have the right people at the right place does not always mean those higher qualified, a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan said there is nothing wrong in govt’s decision putting a cap on the qualification for a post and disqualifying those holding higher degrees.
“The rationale behind prescribing an upper limit of qualification is both reasonable and equitable, namely, to provide employment opportunities to persons who, owing to circumstances of life, could not pursue higher education. The State, as a model employer, is justified in reserving certain categories of posts for such persons so that they are not compelled to compete with more highly qualified candidates against whom they would ordinarily stand little chance of selection.
Such a policy has consistently been upheld by the courts. Thus, when the post was specifically intended for candidates possessing lower educational qualifications, permitting a person with higher qualifications to secure such employment would necessarily result in depriving a genuinely eligible and deserving candidate of the opportunity,” the bench said.
It passed the order while upholding termination of job of a bank employee on the ground that he was graduate at the time of joining while the job specification stipulated the candidate should possess the qualification of passing 8th standard, but should not have passed 12th standard or acquired qualification. “..though we may have sympathy for the respondent, the conduct attributed to him and the settled position of law leave us with no option but to interfere with the impugned judgment.”
NEWS DIGEST
NEWS DIGEST
04.06.2026
SC : Can bar overqualified person from job Sometimes overqualification becomes a disqualification. At a time when highly qualified people, including PhD holders, are competing for class IV govt jobs, the Supreme Court has said a person could be disqualified for a job if he holds a qualification beyond the maximum prescribed qualification.
Wednesday, June 3, 2026
Dependent ‘married daughter’ entitled to compassionate employment: Court
Dependent ‘married daughter’ entitled to compassionate employment: Court
Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesofindia.com 03.06.2026
New Delhi : Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that a dependent married daughter could not be excluded from the definition of ‘family’ and would be entitled to seek employment or allotment of a ration shop if any of her parents died in harness.
A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe faulted a provision of a UP govt order relating to allotment of PDS shop on dependent quota for excluding married daughters from the definition of ‘family’ and said it breached the doctrine of equality embedded in the constitutional framework. “Exclusion of a married daughter from the definition of ‘family’ cannot be sustained,” it said.
Writing the judgment, Justice Aradhe said marital status bore no rational nexus to the status of dependency and the object of compassionate appointment or allotment of ration shops, which is to enable the family to overcome financial hardship caused due to death of the bread earner.
The bench said marriage neither extinguished the bond between a daughter and her parental family nor furnished avalid basis to presume absence of dependency. The UP govt order included “unmarried, legally separated and widowed daughters” as dependents. The SC said it would mean to include depe ndent married daughters. “Contemporary social realities demonstrate that many married daughters continue to reside with, support or remain dependent upon their parents,” it said and asked why a married daughter was excluded from the definition of ‘family’ when married sons were not.
Monday, May 18, 2026
MBBS students transferred after medical college derecognition cannot claim govt fee rates in private institutes: SC
MBBS students transferred after medical college derecognition cannot claim govt fee rates in private institutes: SC
Written By : Barsha MisraPublished On 16 May 2026 6:00 PM |
Updated On 16 May 2026 6:00 PM
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi: Denying relief to the students shifted from the defunct Sardar Rajas Medical College, Odisha, the Supreme Court recently observed that students transferred to private medical colleges, after the original institution lost recognition, cannot claim the benefit of paying only subsidised government medical college fees.
Accordingly, the Apex Court bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed the private medical institutes to recover the outstanding dues from the students at the fee rates applicable at Sardar Rajas Medical College and hospital (SRMCH).
"It is also borne out from the record that the transferee colleges had obtained undertakings from the transferred students at the time of issuance of course-completion documents/certificates, wherein the students acknowledged that the issue relating to fee liability was pending consideration before this Court and undertook to abide by the final directions passed herein. Thus, the passed-out students cannot be allowed the benefit of a windfall or a bonanza merely by dint of the interim orders passed by this Court, which was in form of an emergent measure in order to tide over the situation where the students faced imminent risk of losing their entire careers. Now that, by virtue of the orders passed by this Court, the students have completed the medical courses, it is the right time when they should be asked to make good their outstanding fee obligations," the bench ordered.
Further, it directed that approximately Rs 14 crore that was secured from the Selvam Educational and Charitable Trust, which managed SRMCH, be released to the three private medical colleges that accommodated the transferred students. This amount includes the bank guarantee of Rs 10 crore furnished to the erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI), now National Medical Commission (NMC), and Rs 2 crore deposited before the Supreme Court, along with accrued interest.
"It is accordingly ordered that the amount of approximately Rs.10 crores covered by the bank guarantee furnished by the Trust with the MCI/NMC, shall be made available for distribution amongst the three transferee colleges in equal proportions. The MCI/NMC shall ensure that the said amount is released and paid to the three colleges in their respective bank accounts within a period of three months from today...The amount of Rs.2 crores deposited by the Trust with the Registry of this Court, along with accrued interest thereupon, shall also be divided into three equal portions and disbursed to the transferee colleges," ordered the top court bench.
Case Details:
The case stemmed from the collapse of the Sardar Rajas Medical College. Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that back in 2015, the erstwhile MCI had withdrawn the recognition and affiliation of the medical college after finding serious deficiencies in infrastructure, faculty etc. Following this, the future of the students at the medical college, who were admitted in 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 academic year, was pushed into darkness.
Earlier, to prevent the students from losing an academic year, the Apex Court had ordered their transfer through a State-supervised counselling process. The affected students had been transferred to Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, IMS & SUM Hospital, and Hi-Tech Medical College in Odisha. Among the total of 124 students, who were affected due to the MCI's withdrawal of recognition, a total of 122 students were ultimately relocated to these three private medical institutes.
However, later, approaching the Supreme Court, these medical institutes claimed that despite providing education and stipends to these students for years, they only received nominal government-rate fees under the interim orders passed by the Court. According to the colleges, the government-rate fees were far below the actual fee structure of the private medical colleges.
The colleges also submitted that at the initial stage, they could not raise any protest regarding the shortfall of fees, as the students were transferred to their institutions based on the directions of the Apex Court.
The Court noted that based on the court's order dated 19.04.2016, the Selvam Trust, which used to run the SRMCH, had deposited Rs 2 crore to the Court's registry, which, along with accrued interest, now stands at Rs.3,58,69,331. Further, the Trust had also furnished a sum of approximately Rs 10 crore, with the MCI/NMC by way of bank guarantees as security in connection with regulatory requirements relating to the establishment and functioning of the institution.
Meanwhile, the students submitted that they were admitted to SRMCH through a valid admission process and were subsequently compelled to shift to private medical institutes for no fault of theirs. They submitted that they had already paid fees at Government rates in compliance with the Supreme Court's interim orders and have since completed their medical courses after facing great hardship and uncertainty. Therefore, they urged the Court not to burden them with any additional financial liability at such a belated stage.
The Selvam Trust submitted that the findings regarding the deficiencies in SRMCH were still under challenge before the competent forums. The Trust's counsel also submitted that the Trust was contesting the said findings by raising issues with the MCI/NMC and that the question of its liability could not be conclusively determined in these proceedings without due adjudication of such disputes.
Further, the counsel for the trust urged that the affected students have already derived the benefits of continued education in other recognised medical institutions, which would be either equivalent to or even better than the institution in which they were originally admitted i.e. SRMCH, and therefore, the entire financial burden ought not to be saddled upon the Trust.
Accordingly, the trust argued that no additional liability should be fastened on the Trust without determining its defaults, vis-à-vis the regulatory mechanism.
Meanwhile, the counsel for MCI, now NMC, argued that the fee structure is required to be determined in accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory framework. It was submitted that the admission categories ought to be classified on a quota-based system, whereby students admitted under the Government quota would be liable to pay fees at Government rates, whereas those admitted under the management quota would be liable to pay higher fees as applicable to such category.
Supreme Court's Observations:
The Apex Court rejected the argument that the students should continue to benefit from the subsidised arrangement indefinitely.
"This, in our opinion, would amount to unjust enrichment of these transferee students while being conscious of the fact that they had to face a chaotic situation of being transferred to different medical colleges mid-session. However, all interests of these students were duly protected by this Court ensuring that they cleared the medical course without losing a single academic year. Thus, neither the students can be given undue advantage or bonanza nor can the defaulting institution, i.e., the SRMCH/Selvam Trust, be permitted to take benefit of its own follies," it observed. Even though the Court held that the students definitely faced difficult circumstances without any fault of their own, it also observed that they could not continue receiving the benefit of government-rate fees permanently.
"The situation at hand is well defined by the latin maxim Commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet i.e., no one should derive a benefit from their own wrong. While the admitted students had undertaken to pay the prescribed fees to SRMCH, it is equally true that, upon payment of such fees, they were entitled to complete their course without any hitch or difficulty. However, what transpired subsequently, as noted in the preceding paragraphs, presents an entirely different picture. Owing to the deficiencies in SRMCH, its recognition was not renewed, resulting in the students being subjected to a very tumultuous and volatile situation, putting their future in grave risk," the bench observed.
While deciding the core question regarding the manner in which the resultant financial liability is to be apportioned between the parties while balancing the equities, the bench noted that since the students were transferred and admitted to these private colleges based on the Court's directions in exceptional circumstances, the primary brunt of liability must be fastened upon the Trust.
Accordingly, it ordered, "We, therefore, direct that the amount of approximately Rs.10 crores furnished by the Selvam Trust by way of bank guarantees with the MCI/NMC, along with the amount of Rs.2 crores deposited before this Court, together with accrued interest thereupon, shall be payable to the three transferee colleges."
Regarding the liability of the students, the bench observed that the students were transferred to the applicant colleges, where they continued their studies and completed the courses, albeit without loss of an academic year save for exceptions. Additionally, these students were paid stipends by transferee colleges as and where applicable.
After perusing the fee structure of the medical colleges, the bench noted, "The fee structure of the transferee colleges is slightly higher but the learned counsel representing the colleges fairly conceded on instructions that they would be satisfied by reimbursement of due fees at the rates being charged by SRMCH. Thus, in aggregate, the total amount payable to the three colleges would work out to approximately Rs.16.2 crores. This amount is significantly lower than the fee ordinarily chargeable by the transferee colleges from their own students at private rates and does not account for the interest which would have accrued in the intervening period. The total amount secured by way of bank guarantees furnished by the Trust, together with the amount deposited before this Court along with accrued interest, would aggregate to approximately Rs.14 crores. Even upon applying the fee standards of SRMCH, the transferee colleges would still face a shortfall in the recovery of their lawful dues."
The court noted that the students who passed out from the transferee colleges have virtually undertaken the full MBBS course by paying the fees at the Government rates, which would be only a pittance of what they would have paid to the SRMCH under normal circumstances.
It also observed that the facts were not clear on the aspect as to the number of students originally admitted in SRMCH under the government quota and those admitted under the private/management quota.
From the record, the court also observed that the transferee colleges had obtained undertakings from the transferred students at the time of issuance of course-completion documents/certificates, wherein the students acknowledged that the issue relating to fee liability was pending consideration before the Supreme Court and undertook to abide by the final directions passed by the court.
Accordingly, it held that the passed-out students cannot be allowed the benefit of a windfall or a bonanza merely by dint of the interim orders passed by the court.
Accordingly, it ordered,
"The present status of these passed out students is not available to the Court. Thus, looking to the piquant situation, we permit the transferee colleges to make representations to the MCI/NMC with details of the exact shortfall of the fee due from each student (applying SRMCH rates) for recovery of their remaining dues, if any. It is expected that, upon such representations being made, the NMC shall provide due redressal to the colleges for recovery of the deficit amount, if any, from these passed out students. Excess amount, if any, received from the students may be utilized to recoup the amount of bank guarantee (Rs. 10 Crores) which we have directed MCI/NMC to pay to the applicant colleges. Furthermore, at the time of evaluation, the MCI/NMC shall take into account and adjust the amount initially paid by these students at the time of admission to SRMCH. We further provide that observations made in this order shall not prejudice the claims/defences, if any, of the Selvam Trust or SRCMH in appropriate proceedings, if any." "For the sake of clarification and in view of the directions issued hereinabove, it is provided that the students who comply with the fee liability determined in terms of the present judgment shall be entitled to forthwith receive such academic and coursecompletion documents, certificates and other consequential records, which are ordinarily issued upon completion of the course and are required by the students, in accordance with the applicable rules/regulations," it added.
Thursday, May 14, 2026
Include foster parents’ names in birth certificate, orders HC
Include foster parents’ names in birth certificate, orders HC
K.Kaushik@timesofindia.com 14.05.2026
Madurai : Dignity and the right to construct one’s own identity with reference to gender, familial and societal contexts is part of the right to privacy, Madras high court observed while granting relief to a woman who sought to include the names of her foster parents in her birth certificate without removing the names of her biological parents.
The court was hearing a petition filed by a woman from Madurai, who is pursuing a UG degree. The petitioner stated that she was born in 2005. After her father passed away in 2006, her mother also deserted her. Her paternal uncle and his wife (aunt) raised her as their own daughter. The petitioner stated that in all her identity-related documents, her uncle and aunt’s names are mentioned as parents’ names. However, in the birth certificate alone, the biological parents’ names are mentioned.
This has affected her right to be known as the daughter of her uncle and aunt and it also leads to serious prejudice to her education and career as well. Therefore, the petitioner made an application to include the names of her uncle and.as her father and mother in the birth certificate. However, the same was rejected on the ground that the petitioner should be validly adopted as per the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Challenging the order, the petitioner moved court. The woman’s counsel submitted that she did not seek to remove the names of the biological parents, but to include the names of her uncle and aunt as well. Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed the petitioner is not praying for proprietary rights in the foster family. She wants to be known as their daughter. The same would be within her fundamental right. This apart, her identity itself will be disputed and her education and career will be jeopardised since the names of her parents in all other certificates and birth certificate are different.
The judge observed that there is not only an obligation on the state to respect the child’s right to preserve her identity, but there is also an obligation to provide appropriate assistance. Hence, the judge directed the petitioner to file notarised affidavits of her uncle and aunt, consenting to their names being added to the birth certificate of the petitioner with the suffix ‘foster’. Upon filing such affidavits, the chief registrar of births and deaths, shall also include the names of the uncle and aunt in the appropriate columns, the judge directed
Tuesday, May 12, 2026
SC: Won’t interfere in CBI probe against Senthil
SC: Won’t interfere in CBI probe against Senthil
12.05.2026. TIMES OF INDIA BENGALURU
New Delhi : Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with Madras high court’s order for a CBI probe into alleged irregularities in transformer tenders floated during the tenure of former Tamil Nadu electricity minister V Senthil Balaji between 2021-23.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed appeals filed against the HC order and asked the agency to conduct the investigation uninfluenced by the observations of Madras HC. One of the appeals has been filed by Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (Tangedco). Madras HC had directed a CBI probe on April 29 on a plea filed by NGO Arappor Iyakkam which alleged that 10 tenders issued for the procurement of transformers were manipulated to favour select bidders. TNN
SC: You want to stall everything in the name of environment
SC: You want to stall everything in the name of environment
12.05.2026
A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymlaya Bagchi said the environment impact assessment (EIA) report had found the apprehensions baseless and the National Green Tribunal also has since given a considered opinion green lighting the port expansion.
When Shenoy continued to emphasise that NGT did not consider a series of deficiencies in the EIA report, SC said port development activities are required for the development of the country. “You want to stall everything in the name of the environment. How can the country develop without infrastructure? No doubt precautionary measures are essential. But tell us where else the depth of the sea permits big ports as in Gujarat,” it asked.
“Do you want the port related economic activities to go to other countries,” the bench asked. While refusing to entertain the appeal against NGT order, it permitted the environmentalist to approach western zone NGT at Pune again pointing out the non consideration of his objections to the project.
The counsel said 90% of fish landing off Saurashtra coast takes place at Pipavav port area and the expansion would be a death knell for the fisherfolk of the area. SC said economic activity is not a consideration while preparing the EIA report. Show us 1 development project not opposed by environmentalists:
SC New Delhi : Refusing to entertain a plea against expansion of Pipavav port in Gujarat faulting the environmental clearance,
Supreme Court on Monday said, “Show us a single project where these environmentalists have said we welcome this,” while emphasising that the country cannot develop without infrastructure, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra .
Senior advocate Anitha Shenoy, for environmentalist Chetan Kumar Navintray Vyas, argued that the project was stalled for more than a decade and the environmental clearance was given without considering the adverse impact on marine mammals, Olive Ridley turtles, avian species and mangroves
Wednesday, May 6, 2026
Deemed varsity engg degrees without AICTE nod invalid: HC
Deemed varsity engg degrees without AICTE nod invalid: HC
TIMES NEWS NETWORK 06.05.2026
Chennai : Engineering degrees obtained from deemed-to-be universities during a period without AICTE approval are not valid, the Madras high court said. Approval is mandatory for technical courses, and benefits based on unapproved degrees cannot be sustained, the court added.
A division bench of Justice S M Subramaniam and Justice K Surender passed the order on a review application moved by the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd seeking review of an order passed by the court dated June 25, 2025. The issue pertains to pleas moved by three employees of the corporation seeking to include their names in the seniority list of assistant engineers, taking into consideration their BE degree certificates.
The court allowed the petitions, and an appeal moved by the corporation was also dismissed. Aggrieved, the corporation moved the present review and pointed out that the court failed to notice that recognition/approval of AICTE for technical courses is mandatory and, in the present case, the BE degrees obtained by the employees admittedly were not approved by AICTE during the academic years in which they completed the degree.
The employees opposed the plea and contended that no such approval is required for degrees obtained through deemed-to-be universities. The university, through communication, admitted the fact that it did not obtain any approval from AICTE to conduct a BE (Mechanical) engineering course from the academic year 2002 onwards till 2017. Recording the submissions, the bench held that, therefore, the degrees obtained by the employees cannot be construed as valid degrees in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the Odisha case, which deals with the issue, and allowed the review application
Saturday, April 18, 2026
Poor academics no bar to jobs for high-rankers: HC
Poor academics no bar to jobs for
high-rankers: HC
18.04.2026
Cuttack : The Orissa high court observed that high ranking candidates in a recruitment exam cannot be disqualified on the basis of their poor academic records. The HC ruling came on Thursday while it was hearing a batch of 242 petitions challenging the Odisha Subordinate Staff Selection Commission’s (OSSSC) Oct 10, 2025 order, that denied candidates a place in the merit list for recruitment to the posts of livestock inspector, forester and forest guard, reports Lalmohan Patnaik . OSSSC had rejected the petitioners’ claim for appointment on grounds that they had adopted unfair means during the written exam. HC noted that the commission had not received report of illegality or irregularity in the conduct of the written exam from any of the 94 centres. Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy directed OSSSC to recommend the 242 petitioners for appointment within three weeks. The state govt was to ensure timely appointments.
Employees hired without advertisement or interview cannot be regularised:
Employees hired without advertisement or interview cannot be regularised:
Supreme Court The claim of being engaged sans an advertisement itself gives rise to doubts as regards the manner of engagement, the Court said.
Supreme Court of India. 18.06.2026
Ritu Yadav Published on: 17 Apr 2026, 8:33 pm
The Supreme Court has ruled that government employees hired on a contractual or ad hoc basis without any public advertisement or interview cannot be made permanent under a State policy [Madan Singh v State of Haryana]
A Bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar passed the ruling on April 16 while striking down two notifications issued by Haryana government in 2014 to regularise services of a certain category of employees who had or were about to complete ten years’ of service.
The Court said that the Haryana government failed to justify why services of such ad hoc employees, who had not been engaged on the basis of any advertisement or interview, were sought to be regularised.
“The claim of being engaged sans an advertisement itself gives rise to doubts as regards the manner of engagement. Absence of any record whatsoever of the manner of engagement does not inspire any confidence in such a process,” the Bench said.
Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar However, at the same time, the Court acknowledged the practical reality that many of these employees had been working for years.
"A period of almost twelve years has elapsed since the issuance of these two Notifications. It is the specific stand of the State Government that even after excluding the ad hoc employees from Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’, who seek benefit of these two Notifications, none of the posts advertised would be aLected. Further, it is informed that such appointees have now gained sufficient experience and are likely to have settled in life with the passage of time," the Court noted.
It therefore invoked its power under Article 142 of the Constitution and allowed the employees to continue in service. However, it directed that they would be placed at the lowest pay scale applicable to their posts.
In 2018, the High Court in 2018 had struck down a set of Haryana government notifications aimed at regularising Group B, C and D employees. The decision was then challenged before the top court, which ordered a status quo during the pendency of the matter.
In the judgment passed on April 16, the top court modified the High Court ruling. While it struck down two of the notifications issued in July 2014, it upheld the validity of two similar notifications issued in June 2014.
The policies notified in June 2014 were aimed at extending the benefit of an older 1996 regularisation scheme to employees who had been left out earlier, it noted.
The Court found that the criteria prescribed was very much in tune with the criteria that would have otherwise been prescribed for regular recruitment
"The criteria prescribed was not in any manner watered down or deviated from the criteria required to be satisfied while seeking regular appointment. What is most relevant, in our view, is that such engagement should have been initially made on a sanctioned post and such engagement on the sanctioned post ought to be continuing even on the date of regularisation of service. This would clearly indicate that when such engagement on ad hoc basis was initially made, sanctioned posts were available and this position continued for a number of years so as to enable regularisation of services of the incumbents holding such posts," it said.
After pronouncing the judgment, Justice Narasimha remarked that the issue may require consideration by a larger Bench.
“We have gone through your suggestions. We had a particular difficulty being a combination of a two-judge bench. It would have created yet another problem of two conflicting two-judge benches. We have kept everything ready. We will ask you to do a repeat performance at a time, perhaps when we get this matter taken up at a three-judge bench, which is necessary, and we are going to do that because we have seen that it cannot continue like this. You know.,” Justice Narasimha said.
The Court placed on record its appreciation for the assistance rendered by amicus curiae Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta and advocates Japneet Kaur, Jhanvi Dubey, Ashok Mathur, Vriti Gujral, M Bikram Dwivedi and Jimut Mohopatra.
Friday, April 17, 2026
Can't have different DA hikes for staff and pensioners: Supreme Court
Can't have different DA hikes for staff and pensioners: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has ruled that differential dearness benefit increases for serving employees and pensioners are arbitrary. Inflation impacts both equally, making a 14% DA hike for serving staff and only 11% DR for retirees discriminatory. The court stated that while financial constraints can justify implementation delays, unequal benefit rates violate the right to equality.
Amit Anand ChoudharyTNN
Apr 11, 2026, 3:59 IST
NEW DELHI: Observing that inflationary pressures do not discriminate between a serving employee and a pensioner, hitting the two equally, Supreme Court Friday held that fixing differential rates of enhancement of inflation-linked dearness benefits for the two categories is arbitrary and cannot be allowed.
A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Prasanna B Varale disapproved of Kerala govt's decision to raise dearness allowance (DA) by 14% for state road transport corporation employees when the dearness relief (DR) for its retired employees was raised by just 11%. "...The Govt Order in question increases the rate of DA by 14% and DR by 11% even though the increase is to serve a common object, which is to mitigate the hardship faced by the serving employees and pensioners on account of inflation.
Indisputably, inflation hits both serving and retired employees with equal force... Differentiating the two qua the rate of increase of DA and DR, in our view, has no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved," Justice Misra said, accepting the plea of senior advocates V Chitambaresh and Vipin Nair. The state had contended that serving and retired employees belonged to different categories and differential rates for them did not violate the right to equality. Financial reasons alone could justify the same, it said. The bench said, "No doubt a financial crunch might be a guiding factor to defer disbursement of certain benefits or may justify separate dates for implementation of beneficial schemes.
But once a decision is taken to provide certain allowances, as also to increase them ...fixing a higher rate of increase for the ones who are serving than the ones who have retired, would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution."
Thursday, April 16, 2026
Consider service period of regularised PG doctors for super-specialty admissions’: Madras HC
Consider service period of regularised PG doctors for super-specialty admissions’: Madras HC
Justice M Dhandapani issued the direction on a petition by Dr G Arulvel, who was appointed as assistant surgeon on a temporary basis in 2021.

Madras High Court.
Updated on:
15 Apr 2026, 8:46 am
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has directed the Selection Committee of the state health department to consider the applications of those post-graduate doctors, who were appointed in regular posts on temporary basis and subsequently regularised, for admission to super-specialty courses in medicine under the in-service quota by considering their entire service period as qualifying service.
Justice M Dhandapani issued the direction on a petition by Dr G Arulvel, who was appointed as assistant surgeon on a temporary basis in 2021 in the regular sanctioned post and was regularised on March 6, 2026, after clearing the special qualifying examination for regularisation.
The petitioner approached the court seeking the issuance of directions to consider his application for the super-specialty course for the 2025-26 academic year as in-service candidate in the Round-II counselling.
“There shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner and the other similarly placed persons for admission to super-specialty courses for 2025-26 as in-service candidates by considering the period of service rendered by them in the temporary post, which is borne out of the cadre in the time scale of pay, as qualifying service for the purpose of fulfilment of the conditions laid down under clause 7 and 8 of the prospectus,” the judge in a recent order said.
The judge also directed the authorities to receive the applications from all the eligible temporary assistant surgeons who have been under temporary appointment on a post borne out of cadre, and process their application for selection to the super-specialty courses which are yet to be filled under the in-service quota and admit them on the basis of their inter se merit in the relevant courses for 2025-26.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
State can’t undo 33-year-old appointment: Gujarat High Court
State can’t undo 33-year-old appointment: Gujarat High Court July 5, 2026, 01.02 AM IST Ahmedabad: 05.07.2026 The Gujarat HighCourt has quas...
-
Madras varsity panel against budget cuts Ragu.Raman@timesofindia.com 22.04.2025 Chennai : The state govt's move to cut the budget for t...
-
கணவன் முதல் நாள் இரவில் தான் கண்ட கனவைப் பற்றி மறுநாள் காலையில் தன் மனைவியிடம் விளக்கிக் கொண்டிருந்தார். “அடியேய்... நானும், நீயும் அமொர...