Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

MOHSIN UNISSA versus TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

Decided
29 March 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 1049 · 1996 INSC 463

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 1049, margin F

Appellant was temporarily appointed in the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commi.'5ion itself in the year 1975-76, for regular recruitment, she was selected and appointed in the Finance Department as a Junior Assistant in August 1990. For regularisation of her service passing the Tamil language test was a pre-condition. Initially, she had appeared in the year 1977. While she was temporarily working she had passed the exam. She was asked to pass the same examination again after her regular appointment. It would appear that she had requested a companion who was sining by her side to keep an eye on her answer book and also it was taken that she committed malpractice in copying the paper. On that ground the paper written by her in the year 1977 was also cancelled along with the examination in which she is imputed to have committed malpractice. When she challenged the order, the High Court held that since the examination passed by her in 1977 was valid in law, the cancellation thereof on the ground of her committing malpractice in the second examination is not valid in law. That order has become final.

pp. 1049–1050, margin G

Under these circumstances, the only question is : whether the appellanl's service could be terminated for her failure to pass the examination. No doubt, she did not pass the examination after her regular appointment but she has passed the examination when she was temporarily in service and that order having been allowed to become final, it is no longer open to the respondent to terminate her services for failure to pass the examination. The respondent is directed to regularise her service giving her past benefits of temporary service with effect from 1975-76 for purpose by perusal. Hol'(evcr seniority would be determined, she being a direct recruit, w.e.f. the date of her appointment in August 1990.

p. 1050, margin C

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 1050, margin D