murder

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court delved into the intricate dynamics of promotion within the realm of employment, emphasizing the nuanced distinction between the right to promotion and the right to be considered for promotion. The court’s decision, rooted in principles of administrative discretion and employee rights, provides clarity on the subject while addressing the specific circumstances of the case at hand.

The court elucidated that while an employee does not possess an inherent entitlement to promotion, they do possess a fundamental right to be evaluated for promotion. This pivotal distinction underscores the discretionary power vested in employers regarding promotion decisions, emphasizing that such determinations should not be subject to casual interference. The judgment, delivered in response to a writ petition seeking direction for the acceptance of a promotion recommendation, reflects a balanced approach that respects both employer prerogative and employee expectations.

Promotion, the court articulated, represents a natural progression within the employment hierarchy, driven by considerations of merit, performance, and organizational needs. While employees cannot lay claim to promotion as an automatic entitlement, they do have the right to fair consideration for advancement based on their qualifications and contributions to the workplace. The court underscored the intrinsic link between promotion and employee motivation, noting that advancement opportunities serve as incentives for individuals to excel in their roles and enhance their overall performance.

Contextualizing the judgment within the framework of the case, the court examined the circumstances surrounding the petitioner, an Associate Professor who retired before a promotion decision could be finalized. Concurrently, disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner during their tenure continued post-retirement, adding a layer of complexity to the situation. A prior writ petition filed by the petitioner had resulted in directives from the High Court to halt disciplinary proceedings and address previous denials of service benefits. Subsequently, the petitioner sought redressal for the denial of promotion by the Governing Council, citing alleged institutional bias and unfair treatment.

In presenting arguments before the court, the petitioner’s counsel contended that the Governing Council’s refusal to approve the promotion recommendation constituted harassment and discrimination against the petitioner. The counsel asserted that the recommendation, once made by the Selection Committee, should not require further approval and that any delay in implementing the recommendation amounted to injustice towards the petitioner. Conversely, the institute’s counsel argued that the recommendation’s finality hinged upon approval by the Governing Council, citing precedent to support the contention that recommendations are not mandates but subject to validation by competent authorities.

Upon careful deliberation, Justice Amrita Sinha, presiding over the single-judge bench, delivered a reasoned judgment that upheld the principles of administrative protocol and procedural fairness. The court affirmed that promotion decisions must undergo thorough scrutiny, including internal and external assessments, as well as approval by designated authorities, before implementation. Emphasizing the non-finality of recommendations until endorsed by the appropriate body, the court dismissed allegations of illegality or bias in the employer’s decision-making process.

In concluding its judgment, the court reiterated the exclusive prerogative of employers in determining promotion outcomes, cautioning against undue interference in such matters. While acknowledging the petitioner’s desire for advancement, the court underscored that promotion cannot be demanded as an absolute right but must be earned through demonstrated merit and alignment with organizational objectives.

In essence, the Calcutta High Court’s ruling serves as a clarion call for adherence to procedural rigor and respect for administrative discretion in matters of employment promotion. By delineating the boundaries of employee rights and employer authority, the judgment strikes a delicate balance that upholds fairness and accountability within the workplace ecosystem.

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India has emphasized the fundamental right to choose and reproductive freedom as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The court underscored that in cases where the opinion of a minor pregnant individual conflicts with that of their guardian, the pregnant person’s perspective must be given significant weight in decisions regarding the termination of pregnancy.

Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, leading the bench alongside Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, asserted the paramount importance of a pregnant person’s consent in matters of reproductive autonomy and abortion. Specifically addressing instances where there is a disparity of opinion between the pregnant individual and their guardian, the court stressed the necessity of considering the views of the minor or mentally ill pregnant person as pivotal in reaching a just conclusion.

The bench’s pronouncement came as it revisited a previous order issued on April 22, which had directed the abortion of a 14-year-old rape victim’s fetus at over 30 weeks of gestation. This directive was rescinded on April 28 after the victim’s mother altered her stance on the matter.

In its detailed judgment, the bench scrutinized the clarificatory report dated April 3, 2024, noting an error in denying termination based on the fetus’s gestational age exceeding twenty-four weeks and the absence of congenital abnormalities. The court emphasized that medical boards tasked with assessing pregnancy terminations should not confine themselves solely to the criteria outlined in Section 3(2-B) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. Instead, they must also consider the physical and emotional well-being of the pregnant individual. Furthermore, any revisions in opinion by the medical board must be accompanied by sound reasoning and an evaluation of prevailing circumstances.

The bench raised concerns regarding Section 3(2-B) of the Act, suggesting it may unduly infringe upon individual autonomy by treating substantially abnormal fetuses differently from cases involving incest or rape. It expressed a willingness to examine this issue in appropriate proceedings if necessary.

In the specific case under review, the bench observed alignment between the views of the minor, identified as ‘X,’ and her parents regarding the continuation of the pregnancy. Despite discussions held in court, the minor’s parents opted against proceeding with the termination of the advanced pregnancy at the current juncture. The bench deemed this decision acceptable.

Examining the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, the bench underscored the protection afforded to registered medical practitioners (RMPs) and medical boards when forming opinions in good faith regarding pregnancy termination. While acknowledging the pivotal role of RMPs and medical boards in the Act’s framework, the bench cautioned against their potential obstruction of a pregnant individual’s choice to terminate a pregnancy. Fear or apprehension on the part of RMPs or medical boards, the court argued, directly threatens the fundamental freedoms guaranteed to pregnant individuals under the Constitution.

However, the bench clarified that the legal framework established by the MTP Act, coupled with consistent judicial interpretation, shields RMPs and medical boards from prosecution for acts performed in good faith under the Act’s purview.