[Contract Recruitment Scam] Entire Appointment Process Of Teachers Fraudulent, No Opportunity Of Hearing Needed Before Registering FIR: MP High Court

In reference to the Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III Recruitment Scam in Rampur Naikin, the Madhya Pradesh High Court stated that it is clear from the records that the state authorities have carried out the appointment process by defying due procedure. The court also reprimanded the state government for not following the applicable provisions in Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1997.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra clarified that once the role of concerned officers in unlawfully granting appointments is reflected from the record before the Revenue Commissioner, the further direction for registration of FIR against them doesn't warrant the court's interference.

“…It is the settled law that once the cognizable offence is being pointed to the police authorities then they are duty bound to register an FIR. Even otherwise, prior to registration of an FIR, no opportunity of hearing to be granted to the concerning in terms of the settled principles of law. ..” the bench sitting at Jabalpur observed by relying on the Division Bench judgment in Arvind Kumar Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

Hence, the court noted that the petitioner appointees and concerned authorities will have the opportunity to defend themselves when and if a criminal case is registered against them. By stating the above reasons, the court refused to interfere with the order in the writ.

Background

The Chairman of the agriculture committee at Janpad Panchayat, Rampur Naikin, earlier preferred a revision petition before the Rewa Revenue Commissioner against appointments made to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III, allegedly by flouting the selection procedure. There was an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delay along with it.

Against the Commissioner's order that terminated the services of the appointees after calling the entire records from the Collector, writ petitions were filed by the appointees, which were dismissed by the High Court by upholding the Commissioner's order. It is pertinent to note here that the Commissioner's order also included a direction to register F.I.R. against the employees and the authorities that appointed them.

In the current writ appeal, the counsel for one of the appointees argued that they have been working as a teacher on contract since 2011 and the strict rules of service jurisprudence wouldn't apply. It was also alleged by the counsel for the appellant/petitioner that the revision was not maintainable since it was filed by a stranger who had no nexus to the appointments that are the subject matter of the dispute.

The respondent state argued that the services of Samvida Shala Shikshak are governed by Madhya Pradesh Samvida Shala Shikshak (Appointment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2001 and Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997. Moreover, even the writ of quo warranto could be filed by a third person, the state submitted. The Commissioner has given specific findings in the impugned order about the procedural irregularities in selection, it was further contended.

Court's Observations

The court pointed out that the appellant or the state could not deny the materials placed before the court.

“…The fact remains that the entire procedure for grant of appointment to the petitioner including three other persons was done by playing fraud. No procedure has been followed by the authorities. No advertisement was issued. No application were called for, the educational qualification were not even scrutinized, no verification of documents was done etc...”, the court emphasized how fraud has vitiated the entire process.

The court underscored that since the appointments had been obtained by playing fraud, the appointment order itself would become a nullity and void ab initio.

“..Mere fact that there is no specific order as far as limitation is concerned, the same is only a technicality and will not give any right to the petitioner to take advantage of the same specially in the event when the appointment is being obtained by playing fraud and connivance with the authorities”, the court further clarified.

The court also referred to the High Court judgment in Mansukh Lal Saraf v. Arun Kumar Tiwari & Ors. (2016) to iterate that there is no illegality in quashing the order of appointment of the petitioner and the other three candidates. In Mansukh Saraf, it was held that petitions will be maintainable in service matters as far as Quo Warranto is concerned.

Senior Advocate Manoj Sharma, along with Advocate Quazi Fakhruddin, appeared for the appellant. Govt. Advocate Anubhav Jain represented the state.

Case Title: Rakesh Pandey v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary School Education Department & Ors.

Case No: Writ Appeal No. 623 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 86

Click Here To Read/ Download Order