Back
Rules Cannot Validate Appointment Made in Violation of SC Reservation
The has dismissed a petition by Anil Kumar Chaudhary, holding that the for approval of a teacher's appointment under the cannot be invoked to validate an appointment made in disregard of for Scheduled Caste candidates.
Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, hearing the writ petition, upheld the order dated by which the , disapproved Chaudhary's appointment as an Assistant Teacher at . The court also upheld the subsequent re-advertisement of the post as reserved for an SC candidate.
A Cannot Mask a Flawed Selection
The post of C.T. Grade Teacher was sanctioned in with an express condition that the reservation policy for SC candidates be followed. The management initially advertised the post without indicating the SC reservation, prompting the District Basic Education Officer to direct a fresh advertisement, which was issued on stating preference for SC candidates.
Despite this, the Selection Committee—which included the nominee of the District Basic Education Officer—proceeded to select Chaudhary, a general category candidate, even though two SC candidates, Hari Om and Ram Priti, had appeared for the interview. The management forwarded the proposal for approval, but the District Basic Education Officer raised queries about the non-compliance with reservation rules.
When no decision was communicated within 30 days, Chaudhary claimed his appointment stood "deemed approved" under . He also challenged the disapproval order passed on , arguing it violated .
Participation of Nominee No Substitute for Compliance
The court rejected the argument that the presence of the District Basic Education Officer's nominee in the selection process cured the illegality. “The participation of the nominee cannot dispense with compliance with the mandatory reservation requirement, nor can it confer validity upon an appointment which was subsequently found, upon scrutiny of the relevant record, to be contrary to the prescribed procedure,” the court observed.
On the claim, the judgment stated: “A cannot be invoked to validate an appointment which, at its inception, was made in disregard of the mandatory conditions governing the recruitment and reservation process. The of cannot be permitted to operate as an instrument for legitimising an appointment made contrary to the very statutory framework within which the power of appointment was required to be exercised.”
Does Not Confer Substantive Rights
Chaudhary had continued in service until superannuation only by virtue of an passed by the High Court. The court clarified that such interim protection does not translate into a to . “The petitioner's continuance pursuant to such interim protection cannot be treated as equivalent to service rendered pursuant to a valid substantive appointment for the purpose of conferring a to ,” the judgment said.
However, the court left open the possibility of salary claims for the period during which Chaudhary actually worked under the . “Mere invalidity of the appointment cannot, without examining the relevant circumstances, be treated as an automatic answer to every claim arising from actual service rendered under judicial protection,” the court noted.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The court declined to interfere with the disapproval order and the re-advertisement of the post. The question of salary for the period of actual service under the was left to be examined separately in accordance with law and the terms of the .
