Showing posts with label Court News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Court News. 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

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.

Friday, May 22, 2026

'Nothing short of fraud': SC pulls up Indian Nursing Council rule allowing nursing colleges 30km away from ICU hospitals



'Nothing short of fraud': SC pulls up Indian Nursing Council rule allowing nursing colleges 30km away from ICU hospitals 

Written By : Barsha Misra

Published On 21 May 2026 5:47 PM | Updated On 21 May 2026 5:47 PM Supreme Court of India

New Delhi: Expressing shock over a reported Indian Nursing Council (INC) norm allowing nursing colleges to be located up to 30 kilometres away from hospitals having Intensive Care Unit (ICU) facilities, the Supreme Court recently questioned how nursing students could be expected to receive meaningful hands-on training under such an arrangement.

Taking note of the fact that the nursing curriculum requires students to undertake daily ICU visits as part of the practical training, the Apex Court bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan found it shocking that nursing institutes could get permission to operate despite being located so far away from hospitals equipped with functioning ICUs.

Expressing its shock, the top court bench noted that nursing students must work on real patients as part of their training and cannot be entrusted with responsibility without actual clinical exposure.

When the existing guidelines were brought to the Court's notice, the bench observed that such an arrangement of allowing affiliated hospitals to be located within a 30-kilometre radius was wholly impractical.

During the hearing, Justice Amaullah orally remarked that requiring students to travel such distances on a daily basis was "atrocious" and "shocking to the conscience of this Court."

Live Law has reported that while considering the issue, Justice Amanullah asked, "Every day the student would have to travel 40-50 km to a hospital? How is this guideline there? Nothing short of fraud on the system. 30 Kms every day a student will go for the course to hospital? This is atrocious and shocking to the conscience of this Court. How did you allow the provision to be there?"

In response, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati submitted that she would seek instructions on whether such a provision indeed existed and whether the competent authority could revisit it.

At this outset, the bench clarified that ideally, nursing colleges should be attached to ICU hospitals and if not, such hospitals should be within a one-kilometre radius.

The bench has also issued directions to the Indian Nursing Council for submitted a report on around 800 such colleges, specifically mentioning their distances from hospitals with ICU facilities.

"The Indian Nursing Council, on query, submitted that the basic course incorporates a daily visit to an ICU as per the course curriculum for hands-on training. At this juncture, the Court expressed its surprise as to how such institutions are approved or given permission to start the institute, where clearly the said institution is miles apart from the hospital having a proper and regular ICU. The Court was informed that, as per guidelines, the said hospital can be at a distance of 30 kms. The Court is shocked, and clearly it can't be believed that students of nursing can be visiting every day, which is also imperative for the reason that at the end of the course, they have to practically work on a real patient. Without real experience, they can't be entrusted with responsibility. ASG submitted that she would take instructions as to whether such a provision is there and if it's there, the authority may have a relook," the Apex Court ordered. The top court made these observations during the hearing of a long-pending matter that concerned healthcare standards. After considering the recommendations prepared by a panel appointed by the Court and taking note of the suggestions from healthcare experts, the Apex Court issued a series of nationwide directions for strengthening the critical care infrastructure and standardising ICU facilities across India.

Apex Court's Directions on Improving ICU Standards:

During the hearing, the bench approved the framework titled "Guidelines for Organisation and Delivery of Intensive Care Services". Under this framework, ICUs have been classified into Level I, Level II and Level III categories.

The Court endorsed the classification of the ICUs into Level I, Level II, and Level III categories, observing that the proposed standards were well considered and required strict enforcement.

Further, it also emphasised the urgency of strengthening critical care infrastructure, noting that the healthcare system in the country is facing immense pressure due to the growing population of the country. This, according to the bench, is resulting in a shortage of quality emergency care facilities.

The Apex Court observed that the healthcare infrastructure of the country was struggling to keep pace with the rising demand and emphasised that access to critical care directly implicates the fundamental right to life.

Underlining that the State is obligated to ensure access to such care to protect the citizens' right to life, the bench observed, "When it comes to a person in a critical health condition, there is a real dearth and shortage of facilities to ensure that the least patient is made stable so as to give him or her further corrective measures."

The bench has directed the States and Union Territories to complete a gap assessment exercise within two months. Further, the States have also been asked to begin work on implementing minimum standards for Level I ICUs in healthcare institutions, focusing on ensuring that critically ill patients receive stabilising care in time-sensitive emergencies.

Taking note of the financial constraints in expanding the healthcare infrastructure, the Supreme Court bench recommended the States to explore funding through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives, NGO support and public donations. It also cautioned that such funds must be ring-fenced and used only for ICU-related infrastructure.

Further, the States have been directed by the top court bench to assess the feasibility of maintaining at least five fully-equipped ambulances, including ventilator support and trained personnel, through donated funding for the transportation of the critically ill patients within districts.

Apart from these, in another major direction, the Supreme Court has asked the Centre to formulate a nationwide GPS-based system that would map the hospitals and indicate the availability of ICU along with capacity, enable faster referrals and coordinated transfers between institutions. The top court bench has also endorsed tele-ICU and tele-consultation systems and called for a digital communication grid linking hospitals.

The matter has been listed for further hearing in August, when the court-appointed committee is expected to place its final recommendations.

Medical Dialogues had previously reported that earlier this year, the Supreme Court of India had directed all the States and Union Territories to prepare a 'realistic and practical' action plan to strengthen Intensive Care Unit (ICU) facilities and implement the guidelines necessary as a minimum standard, while asking the Centre to circulate standardised ICU guidelines as an advisory.

While hearing about healthcare services, including guidelines for the treatment of patients in the ICU or critical care unit, the apex court was informed that "Guidelines for Organisation and Delivery of Intensive Care Services", on which there is consensus and which is practical, implementable and necessary as a minimum standard for an ICU, has been prepared.

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.

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

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."

Tuesday, April 14, 2026

Wife reneges on divorce by consent, SC invokes Art 142

Wife reneges on divorce by consent, SC invokes Art 142

 AmitAnand.Choudhary@timesofindia.com 14.04.2026

New Delhi : In a classic case of how court proceedings are misused in matrimonial disputes-a woman agreed for a divorce and signed a financial settlement agreement for separation but she not only reneged from the promise after getting a substantial part of the money from her husband, but she also filed a criminal case against him and his family members. 

The Supreme Court on Monday invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage and also quashed the domestic violence case, brushing aside her opposition. The court dissolved the marriage and directed the husband to pay the final installment of Rs 70 lakh to her and also quashed all civil and criminal cases lodged by the couple against each other.

Friday, April 10, 2026

Madras HC bins plea on transfer of govt staff after 3 years


Madras HC bins plea on transfer of govt staff after 3 years

Apr 10, 2026, 02.06 AM IST

Chennai: Madras high court on Thursday refused to order transfer of govt employees who have been working in the same place for more than three years. The court observed that while the Election Commission (ECI) is taking action by transferring govt servants, interference by the court is not required.

The first bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed this, while disposing of a plea moved by Integrated Manapparai Taluk Rainfed and Irrigated Farmers Association.

According to the petitioner, a govt order (GO) was issued in 1994 mandating the transfer of govt employees working in various departments once every three years to ensure transparency in administration and to prevent misuse of power by officials. It further alleged that govt officials working in departments such as agriculture, revenue and police have been continuing in the same postings for more than three years, and as a result, they have been selectively extending govt welfare schemes to preferred individuals.

The association also contended that govt officials must act impartially during elections, but allowing them to continue in the same post for long durations is against election conduct rules and creates a possibility of them acting in favour of the ruling party. Refusing to entertain the plea, the bench observed that transfer of govt employees is a service-related matter and such a relief cannot be sought in a PIL. The court, however, directed the ECI to consider the petitioner's representation in accordance with law.

Tuesday, April 7, 2026

Judge breaks nib of pen after signing Sathankulam verdict

Judge breaks nib of pen after signing Sathankulam verdict 

TIMES OF INDIA  CHENNAI EDITION 07.04.2026

The convicts include the then inspector S Sridhar, sub-inspectors K Balakrishnan, P Raghu Ganesh, head constables S Murugan and A Samadurai, and four constables—M Muthuraja, S Chelladurai, X Thomas Francis and S Vailmuthu. 

A total fine of over ₹1 crore has been imposed on them. The 10th suspect, the then special sub-inspector Paldurai, who too had been arrested, died of Covid in Aug 2020. 

After signing judgment on Monday, judge Muthukumaran broke the nib of his pen. 

Jeyaraj and Beniks were taken to the Sathankulam police in Tuticorin district in south Tamil Nadu late in the evening of June 19, 2020, on charges of having kept their shop open beyond the deadline during the Covid-19 lockdown. They were brutally assaulted by the policemen at night and were lodged in Kovilpatti sub-jail the next day. 

Beniks died of injuries at the Kovilpatti govt hospital on June 22, 2020, while his father Jeyaraj died on June 23, 2020. Their deaths sent shock waves and triggered public outcry across the state, and Justice P N Prakash of Madras high court took note of the killings and ordered the transfer of probe to the CBI. 

Recalling the HC intervention, judge Muthukumaran said, “ If not for the HC, truth regarding the incident would have been buried along with mortal remains of the duo.” “It was an act of vengeance by the police. Jeyaraj was tortured since there was an altercation with the police and Beniks was tortured since he questioned the illegal detention of his father. 

The act was committed by the policemen with the deliberate intent to instill fear among the public as two traders had lost their lives,” the judge said. “Where there is power, there should be responsibility. The incident was an attack on human rights,” the judge observed and added that custodial death is a social evil. 

The judge observed that this is not the first case of custodial death and it is also not going to be the last case either. “Such incidents are occurring everywhere,” the judge said, referring to the George Floyd incident reported in the US and the recent incident where B Ajith Kumar, a temple security guard, died due to custodial torture in Thiruppuvanam in Sivaganga. 

“Those who should protect the public have misused their power. This was a case of fencing eating the crops,” he said. Earlier, the state govt asserted that custodial deaths could not be tolerated and the Centre stated that maximum punishment should be awarded to the convicts. 

All nine Sathankulam case convicts get death sentence 

Judge: This Is To Prevent More Such Incidents 

Madurai : All nine police personnel arrested in connection with the custodial deaths of P Jeyaraj and his son J Beniks who were tortured in Sathankulam police station in 2020, were sentenced to death on Monday. Mere life sentences would not be sufficient, as the policemen would have no fear and would, instead, get emboldened, said the first additional district and sessions court in Madurai, G Muthukumaran on Monday. 

“It would send a false message to society. The punishment imposed on the police personnel in this case should be stringent one in order to prevent the recurrence of such incidents in the future. All the nine convicted police personnel in the case were equally involved in the attack on the father-son duo which resulted in their death,” the judge said. “The justice we got today is justice for all common people,” Jeyaraj’s daughter, J Persis, told reporters. “No family should face the trauma we underwent. We believe judgment in this case will prevent such incidents of custodial deaths in the future.”

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...