Recognition Of Service Must Be Based On Objective Criteria, Not Extraneous Factors Like Gender: Patna HC

Patna High Court: Justice Anil Kumar Sinha ruled against the gender-based prioritization of a female Peon's service over a male employee who held a sanctioned post at a girls' school. The court found that without statutory backing, employment recognition must be based on objective criteria rather than extraneous factors like gender. Setting aside orders recognizing respondent's service, who was appointed to an unsanctioned post, the court directed recognition of the petitioner's father's legitimate claim to the sanctioned post and ordered payment of all monetary benefits, including salary arrears and retirement dues.

Background

The petitioner's father, Ramdeo Yadav, was appointed as a Peon at Project Girls High School, Anandpur, in 1982. Despite continuous service until his death in 2012, his claim for recognition was rejected in favor of Laldei Devi, whose service was recognized in 2008 despite no proof of her having worked at the school. Ramdeo Yadav's appointment had been against a sanctioned post, but the authorities dismissed his recognition on grounds of non-availability of the post. Instead, the service of Laldei Devi, who was appointed on an unsanctioned post, was given priority based on her gender.

Arguments

The petitioner, through Mr. Ram Sagar Singh, argued that his father was wrongfully denied recognition and salary benefits, despite being appointed to one of the two sanctioned posts for Class-IV employees. He contended that Laldei Devi was illegally appointed to an unsanctioned post and was falsely given priority due to being a female candidate in a girls' school. The petitioner highlighted reports from school authorities and other officers that proved his father's continuous service and the arbitrary rejection of his claim.

The State, represented by Dr. Rakesh Prabhat, defended the decision, asserting that only two posts of Peon were sanctioned, and Laldei Devi was rightfully prioritized for recognition. They contended that there was no vacancy to accommodate the petitioner's father. Laldei Devi, represented by Mr. Amarendra Narayan, argued that her appointment was necessary due to her gender, given the nature of the girls' school. She further claimed that her service was duly recognized based on school records.

Court's Reasoning

The court found that the petitioner's father, Ramdeo Yadav, had continuously served as a Peon since 1982 in one of the two sanctioned Class-IV posts at the Project Girls High School, Anandpur. The Laldei Devi was appointed later in 1983 on an unsanctioned post, yet her service was prioritized on the sole basis of her gender. The court found the authorities' decision to favor Laldei Devi because she was a woman working in a girls' school, arbitrary and unsupported by government guidelines or committee recommendations. The court highlighted that no law or circular provided a basis for giving preference to a female employee over a male employee who was already appointed to a sanctioned post. The three-men committee report, which had evaluated the service records in line with a Supreme Court order, made no mention of gender-based preferences, yet the authorities used this argument to justify recognizing Laldei Devi's service.

The court noted that the managing committee, the District Education Officer, and other officers had consistently recognized the petitioner's father's service over the years. The decision to deny recognition to him, despite his clear entitlement, was deemed to be a violation of the norms established for such appointments. The court pointed out that the petitioner's father's service was listed in the project report as one of the sanctioned posts, while Laldei Devi's name was not mentioned, further discrediting the authorities' justification. Justice Sinha ruled that the petitioner's father was rightfully entitled to recognition and the benefits attached to the second sanctioned post. The court also criticized the authorities for failing to correct this wrong over the years, allowing Laldei Devi to continue working based on an arbitrary decision. The judge emphasized that decisions involving the recognition of service must be based on objective criteria rather than extraneous factors like gender when there is no statutory backing for such preferences.

The court ordered that the petitioner and other legal heirs receive all monetary benefits, including arrears of salary and retirement dues, as a result of this wrongful denial of recognition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Ram Sagar Singh

Counsel for the State: Dr. Rakesh Prabhat

Counsel for Laldei Devi: Mr. Amarendra Narayan

Case No: CWJC No. 9522 of 2016 (Jiwachh Yadav v. The State of Bihar)

Click Here To Read/Download Order