nand keshwar prasad

vs.

inffco ltd.

(1998 (8)Flr 367 sc-Db)

can a resignation be acepted and employee relieved earlier than the date desired by employee ?

can letter of resignation be recalled ? 

resignation/relieving date cannot be advanced  against the wishes of employee.

letter can be withdrawn any time before its acceptance.

Lic

vs.

jagmohan sharma (1998 (80) flr 833 sc - db)

If courts find irregularity in promotions, can they, as part of judicial review, issue orders to promote any particular person ?

courts while reviewing promotions must only strike down promotions and leave it to the establishments concerned to conduct the dpc afresh after strictly complying with the promotion rules. courts should refrain from ordering promotions.

manoj kumar misra

Vs

state of u.p. [1997(2) clr 617all-hc]

& askand kumar

srivastava

Vs

state of up 1999(82)flr1[hc-all]

in u.p. state transport corporation case [1995(70)flr890], the supreme court had directed that the apprentices of an establishment should be given preference over direct recruits and they should also be considered for employment without employment exchange sponsoring and also be given suitable age relaxation. can management insist that such apprentices should appear for a written test along with other open candidates and reject those not getting minimum qualifying marks?

the supreme court judgement in the up transport case has nowhere ruled that holding of an examination for  making a selection would be ultravires. in fact the very first direction of the supreme court is that “other thingS being equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference”.  this clearly indicates that apprentices must also compete with others and get minimum pass marks.

apprentice are eligible for consideration without employment exchange sponsoring and age relaxation to the extent of their apprenticeship training duration.

mitrangshu roy choudhary

vs

union of india [1999(82)flr 239 sc-db]

has an apprentice a right to demand that he be given employment in the establishment

as per section 22 of the apprentices act, the apprentice has no such right.

the earlier high court judgements only state that other things being equal, they are to be given preference.

mohd hadi raja

vs.

state of bihar 1998 (5) scc 91 [sc-db]

section 19 of the prevention of corruption act 1988 and section 197 of the criminal procedure code 1973 stipulate that no criminal prosecution can be launched against a public servant for acts performed in his official capacity, unless prior permission is obtained from the competent authority/head of the institution of the concerned employee

while all government/civil servants are fullfledged public servants, public sector executives are treated as public servants only for the purposes of sections 7,10,11,13 and 15 of the prevention of corruption act 1988.

accordingly no correption related criminal prosecution can be  launched against a public servant unless prior sanction is obtained from the head of the institution of the concerned employee charged with an offence of corruption act ?

the case law hitherto has been that no criminal prosecution will lie against a civil servant

in this judgement the supreme court has re-written the existing case law

the supreme court has now made a distinction between civil servants and public sector officials  

while the protection of prior sanction for prosecution under section 197 of the cpc 1973 will continue to be available to the government civil servants who are public servants, psu officials are not to be treated as fullfledged public servants and they will not be eligible for the protection of prior sanction

the net result is that from now onwards cbi/other prosecution agencies need not take the prior approval of the head of public sector institutions for filing criminal prosecution under sections 7, 10, 11, 12 & 15 of the prevention of corruption act 1988.

Note :  in this connection reference may please be made to the cvc,s recent circular letter no.8(1)(h)/98(3) dated 27.11.98 informing all psu’s to ensure that decisions on requests for criminal prosecution against psu officers should positively be taken within three months, failing which it will be treated as a misconduct on the part of the head of the institution.