1. Appointment of teachers based on sanctioned posts — Alleged forgery in number of posts — Stoppage of salary — Challenge against denial of relief. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 13
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Radhey Shyam Yadav & Anr. Etc. - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos.20-21 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.3877-3878 of 2022)
Decided On : 03-01-2024
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Denial of salary without any justifiable reason cannot be countenanced.
Denial of salary without any justifiable reason cannot be countenanced.
Subject
Employment Law - Salary Dispute
Act Referred
Headnote
Service Law – Salary – Non-payment – There is not an iota of material to demonstrate how appellants, who were applicants from open market, were guilty of colluding in manipulation – There is no reference to any material whatsoever that had been unearthed either in departmental inquiry launched or in criminal investigation – While State sanctioned two vacancies, school went ahead and recruited three – State has no proof of commission of any malpractice by appellants – State approved their appointments and approval order till date has not been cancelled – Appointments have not been terminated – No action has been taken against school and school continues to receive aid – Alleged mischief was at end of School and its Manager – It will be a travesty of justice if relief is denied to appellants – Enormous prejudice would also occur to them – Appellants were not at fault and State could not have abruptly stopped their salaries – State directed to pay full salary and 50% back wages for intervening period, alongwith all consequential benefits, including seniority, notional promotion, if any, and fitment of salary and other service benefits. (Paras 15, 17, 22, 30 and 34)
Facts of the case:
Appellants were appointed as Assistant Teachers at Junior High School. From October, 2005, abruptly their salaries were stopped. They moved High Court for redressal. Both Single Judge and the Division Bench declined them relief. Aggrieved, they are before us in these Appeals.
Findings of Court:
After receiving reply, if any, and after holding an inquiry with an opportunity of personal hearing, State will be at liberty to pass an appropriate order. In the event of Committee of Management being exonerated, no further question will arise. In the event of them being found guilty of the charge, in view of any finding that may be arrived that the manipulation prior to the recruitment was done at the level of the employees of the school (whether by themselves or in collusion with officials), we grant liberty to State to recover from Committee of Management one-third of the arrears, as ordered to be paid, hereinabove. This direction will serve ends of justice in the matter.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Surender Kumar Gupta, AOR Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Ms. Muskan Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Dhawal Uniyal, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya, AOR Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Adv. Mr. Dhawal Unyal, Adv.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Surender Kumar Gupta, AOR Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Ms. Muskan Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Dhawal Uniyal, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya, AOR Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Adv. Mr. Dhawal Unyal, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Appellants — No collusion in forgery — Prejudice against innocent candidates vs State — Fraud vitiates entire selection process. (Para 12 , 13 )
3. Absence of evidence regarding candidate collusion — Forgery committed by management and officials — Distinction between systemic fraud and individual administrative manipulation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 31 , 32 , 33 )
4. Innocent candidates not complicit in fraud committed by appointing authorities should not be penalized, particularly when they have served for a significant period. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
5. High Court orders set aside — Salaries and partial backwages granted — Deemed continuity of service — Liberty to recover from management. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 )
6. Can a selection process be cancelled entirely if fraud is committed by the appointing authority without the candidates' knowledge?
No, if candidates are bona fide applicants from the open market and there is no evidence of their collusion in the fraud, they should not be prejudiced, especially after serving for a significant period. (Para 15 , 23 , 30 )
7. How does the court distinguish between systemic fraud and individual administrative manipulation in recruitment?
Systemic fraud involving widespread irregularities, such as cheating or impersonation, may justify cancelling the entire process. In contrast, isolated manipulation of vacancies by authorities without candidate involvement does not necessarily vitiate the appointments of innocent candidates. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 )
8. What is the legal position regarding the termination of services when an appointment is found to be based on an illegality committed by the selection committee?
Where the candidate is not at fault and has served for a long duration, it is inequitable to disturb their appointment, as the blame lies solely with the selection committee or approving authority. (Para 26 , 29 )
JUDGMENT :
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Radhey Shyam Yadav, Lal Chandra Kharwar and Ravindra Nath Yadav are the three appellants. On 25.06.1999, they were appointed as Assistant Teachers at the Junior High School, Bahorikpur, Maharajganj, District Jaunpur, U.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the School’). From October, 2005, abruptly their salaries were stopped. They moved the High Court for redressal. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench declined them relief. Aggrieved, they are before us in these Appeals.
Brief facts:-
3. From the record, it appears that the School started as a recognized unaided school in 1983-1984 with one post of Head Master, four posts of Assistant Teacher, three posts of Peon and one post of Clerk. On 07.10.1996, two posts of Assistant Teacher were increased, raising the sanctioned strength of Assistant Teacher to six.
4. On 26.12.1997, the Director of Education (Basic) sanctioned certain additional posts of Assistant Teacher in the aforesaid School. While the department claims that by the order of 26.12.1997, only two posts of Assistant Teacher were sanctioned, the Manager/Principal of the School claiming that three posts were sanctioned, went ahead and sought permission from the District Basic Education Officer for issuing advertisement. This was done by their letter of 28.01.1998. The letter of 26.12.1997 has been placed before us by the State in the form of an additional affidavit which indicates that only two posts were sanctioned. The State does not dispute that by the above letter two posts of Assistant Teacher were sanctioned. In 1998, the School became an aided School.
5. Thereafter, responding to the letter of the School, the District Basic Education Officer by his letter of 20.11.1998 accorded permission to issue advertisement for appointment of three posts of Assistant Teachers. On 25.11.1998, an advertisement was issued. The School, thereafter, on 08.12.1998, wrote a letter to the District Basic Education Officer to nominate a Member for the selection of the teachers. In response, the District Basic Education Officer nominated the Assistant District Basic Education Officer, Bahorikpur as a Member of the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee duly met and considered the twelve applications received by it. Seven out of the twelve applicants, including the three appellants herein, participated in the interview. By its letter of 27.12.1998, the Selection Committee informed the District Basic Education Officer that the appellants, on basis of their ability, have been selected and their case was being submitted for approval. The order in which the Selection Committee has sent subject-wise names were as follows :
i. Lal Chandra Kharwar – Science and Math
ii. Radhey Shyam Yadav – English
iii. Ravindra Nath Yadav – Agric & Gen.Topic
It is not disputed that by an order of 09.06.1999, the District Basic Education Officer granted approval for the appointment of the appellants. As stated earlier, they were appointed on 25.06.1999 and were working continuously.
6. The undisputed case is that from October, 2005, their salaries were stopped from being disbursed, forcing them to file Writ Petitions in the High Court, namely, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10286 of 2007 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18641 of 2008. The three appellants, in all, filed two writ petitions. In the writ petitions, the prayer was for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the arrears of salary from July, 1999 to January, 2002 and continue to pay salary from October, 2005. It was their case that from the date of appointment till January 2002, their salary had not been released.
7. The District Basic Education Officer filed counter affidavits to the writ petitions. It was his case that, by order dated 26.12.1997, only two additional posts of Assistant Teacher were created by the Joint Director of Education. It was averred that manipulation was made by the management in collusion with the appellant
