Back
Allahabad High Court Orders Salary Payment Despite DBEO's Failure to Send Nominee
In a significant ruling reinforcing the principle of in recruitment processes, the has directed the District Basic Education Officer (DBEO) to pay salary to a Peon who was appointed after the officer repeatedly failed to send a nominee to the selection committee. The Court held that the absence of the DBEO's nominee does not vitiate the selection, and the appointee cannot be denied salary for the authorities' own inaction.
Justice Irshad Ali allowed a writ petition filed by Mahendra Kumar Yadav , who was selected for a Class-IV post at a recognised and aided junior high school, but was never paid despite joining duties on .
The Case in Brief
The management of the school had intimated the DBEO about a vacancy in , and an advertisement was published in . The interview, originally scheduled for , was postponed to because the DBEO did not send his nominee despite two written requests from the management. The selection committee proceeded without the nominee and placed the petitioner first on the merit list.
The selection papers were forwarded to the DBEO on for approval. Under (the Rules of 1984), the officer was required to communicate a decision within one month. Since no order was passed within this period, the selection stood deemed approved on . The petitioner was issued an appointment letter on and joined the next day. Despite the management informing the DBEO about the and submitting four representations between and , no salary was released, leading to the writ petition.
The Contentions
Petitioner's counsel argued that the entire selection process was conducted strictly in accordance with the Rules of 1984. The vacancy was duly notified, the advertisement was published, and eligible candidates were invited. The DBEO's repeated failure to send a nominee despite requests could not be allowed to frustrate the recruitment. Relying on the clause, the counsel submitted that once the proposal was forwarded and no decision was communicated within a month, the appointment was legally valid. The authorities, having accepted the petitioner's services, could not deny salary.
Counsel for the respondents contended that under the Rules of 1984, the selection committee must include a nominee of the DBEO. Since no nominee was present, the selection was vitiated in law, and withholding salary was justified. They argued that no interference under was warranted.
Court's Reasoning
The Court observed that the DBEO's failure to send a nominee despite repeated requests was a clear case of inaction by the authorities. It relied on two Division Bench decisions: and . In both cases, the Court had held that the absence of the officer's nominee does not render the selection illegal, especially when the selection committee was otherwise duly constituted and the papers were forwarded for approval.
The Court quoted from the
Praveen Kumar Mishra
case:
"Merely non presence of nominee / representative of the DBEO does not vitiate the selection proceeding conducted in absence of the nominee."
It further cited
Gunjan Singh
for the proposition that where the officer has no genuine reason for not sending a nominee, the management, which is obliged to conclude recruitment within a stipulated time, could proceed with the selection by majority decision.
Applying these principles, Justice Irshad Ali held that the selection was valid and the had come into effect. The respondents could not withhold salary on the ground that no nominee was present.
The Final Order
The Court allowed the writ petition and issued a commanding respondent No.2 (the DBEO) to pass appropriate orders for payment of current salary month by month, and for respondent No.3 to disburse the same. The DBEO was directed to permit the petitioner to continue working as Peon. Arrears of salary from were ordered to be paid with interest at 8% per annum. The entire exercise must be completed within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.
The judgment reinforces the of under the Rules of 1984 and makes it clear that authorities cannot benefit from their own delay or inaction. It underscores that salary is the right of an employee who has worked continuously and cannot be denied on technical grounds when the recruitment process was substantially compliant with statutory provisions.
