Supreme Court Asks State To Pay Salaries To Teachers Appointed Over Sanctioned Posts; Says They Weren't At Fault

The factual matrix of the case was such that the Director of Education (Basic) had sanctioned 2 posts of Assistant Teacher for the concerned school. However, the Manager of the school sought permission from the District Basic Education Officer (DBEO) to advertise 3 posts, which was granted.

The DBEO had nominated a member for the Selection Committee, which Committee informed that it had selected the appellants based on their abilities. Subsequently, the DBEO granted approval for the appellants' appointment. The appellants were appointed in 1999 and commenced working.

From October, 2005, however, their salaries were abruptly stopped. Aggrieved, they moved the High Court, seeking a mandamus commanding payment of salaries to them since October 2005.

The DBEO contested the petitions, stating that the management of the school and the appellants had colluded to show that 3 posts were sanctioned.

The writ petitions were dismissed both by a Single Bench and a Division Bench of the High Court, taking a view that if based on the forged sanction order, proceedings were initiated for the selection of Assistant Teacher, then the entire selection needed to be cancelled. The appellants were held unentitled to appointment and to retainment of their posts.

In this backdrop, the appellants approached the Supreme Court. They averred that they had tendered a very long period in service to the school and could not be prejudiced as they were not at fault. The appellants also urged that they were continuously teaching till March, 2016 and used to enter their names in a separate register.

The State, on the other hand, defended the impugned judgments by contending that where there was a fraud, whole selection process was vitiated.

After going through the material on record, and hearing rival contentions, the Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan, did not find merit in the State's case. It was held that there was no material to show that the appellants, who were applicants in the selection process from open market, were guilty of manipulation.

“With no finding of guilt against the appellants and with no material against them, their salaries had been stopped and they have been prevented to sign on the regular attendance register, admittedly from October 2005,” the court said.

It cited Chief Engineer, M.S.E.B. and Another v. Suresh Raghunath Bhokare as a case bearing striking resemblance. In the captioned case, the respondent was dismissed from service on the ground that his recommendation by the department was allegedly made fraudulently. The Supreme Court, observing that no overt act was attributed to the respondent, had held that he could not be inferred to have played a role in sending fraudulent list, solely on the basis of the presumption that he got the job.

The court also cited Vivek Kaisth and Anr. v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., where appointments of the judicial officers in Himachal Pradesh were protected despite the finding that they were in excess of the advertised vacancies. The following excerpt from Vivek Kaisth (Supra) merits reference:

“…it is nobody's case that the appellants have been appointed by way of favouritism, nepotism or due to any act which can even remotely be called as “blameworthy”. Finally, they have now been working as judges for ten years.”

Reference was also made to the recent Constitution Bench judgment allowing District Judges in Kerala to continue in their post, despite irregularities in the selection process.

Relying on these decisions, and others, the Bench hearing the present matter observed that the appellants had no “blameworthy conduct”.

“They were bona fide applicants from open market. The alleged mischief, even according to the State, was at the end of the School and its Manager. It will be a travesty of justice if relief is denied to the appellants. Enormous prejudice would also occur to them.”

It was further observed that the State had no proof of commission of any malpractice by the appellants. In fact, it had approved their appointments and the approval order had not been cancelled till date. The appointments had not been terminated either.

Moreover, no action had been taken against the school, which continued to receive aid. Only an FIR was registered against the Manager of the school.

The court also took note of an Inquiry Report filed pursuant to directions of the High Court, wherein it was concluded that it was the erstwhile District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur and his office, in collusion with the Manager of the School, who had taken steps for appointment/approval. The Report had further mentioned that it was the Manager of the School who was guilty of fraudulently changing the number of posts from 2 to 3 in the sanction order.

So far as the State's reliance on the judgment in Sachin Kumar and Ors. v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board(DSSSB) and Ors (2021), the court noted that the present case was distinguishable. Explicating why, it said that Sachin Kumar (Supra) involved cancellation of the selection process before any appointments were made. As such, no rights were crystallized to any of the candidates.

Arriving at its conclusion, the Bench directed that the State shall pay salaries of the appellants for the period beginning from the date of appointment till January, 2002 in full. Insofar as the period from October, 2005 till date of the judgment was concerned, the State was directed to pay 50% of the backwages.

All consequential service benefits were also granted to the appellants. The court further declared that “the appellants have always been and are deemed to be in service”.

Directing the State to comply with the directions within four weeks, the court also said that the appellants be allowed to commence work within the said period.

To serve the ends of justice, the State was given liberty to issue a show-cause notice to the Committee of Management of the school, which had not entered appearance despite being served. The court also gave liberty to the State to partially recover the arrears directed to be paid from the management, subject to the conditions set out in the judgment.

Counsel for appellants/teachers: Advocate Surender Kumar Gupta

Counsel for respondent/State: Advocate Sansriti Pathak

Case Title: Radhey Shyam Yadav & Anr. Etc. v. State of U.P. & Ors., CIVIL APPEAL NOS.20-21 OF 2024

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9