In Brief
Respondent No. 1, a teacher, was appointed after a higher-ranked candidate did not join due to a misdirected appointment letter. When the Tribunal later ordered the higher-ranked candidate's appointment, Respondent No. 1's services were terminated in compliance. She challenged the termination for lack of prior notice. The High Court set aside the supernumerary post direction but ordered her appointment in any vacancy. The Supreme Court held that termination was unavoidable to comply with the final Tribunal order. Although procedural notice should ideally have been given, its omission was not fatal given the binding nature of the Tribunal order, lack of disciplinary stigma, and nearly two decades of elapsed time. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's direction for appointment and affirming that back wages were untenable."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.