Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Smita Shrivastava – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(S). of 2024(Arising out of SLP(C) No(S). 23966-23968 of 2022)
Decided on : 03-05-2024
Service Law – Appointment – Post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III – Appellant is presently of 59 years of age and can hold post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III till age of 62 years – Despite a clear-cut finding that amended rule would not apply in case of appellant, State Government has rejected her legitimate claim by relying on amended rule – It is a glaring case wherein adamant, arbitrary, mala fide and high-handed approach of State Government and its officials has driven appellant to a series of prolonged litigations which were evidently not out of her choice – In spite of having passed selection exam held for post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III long back, appellant did not reap fruits of her success – Despite recognising all unjustified orders faced by appellant, Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh failed to provide restitutive relief to appellant even after holding that she was illegally deprived of her lawful entitlement – Appellant deserves direction for restitutive relief along with compensation for misery piled upon her owing to arbitrary and highhanded action of State Government and its officials – Appellant shall forthwith be appointed to post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III or an equivalent post within a period of 60(sixty) days from today – Appellant shall be entitled to continuity in service – However, she shall not be entitled to back wages – However, she is granted exemplary cost quantified at Rs.10,00,000/-. (Paras 8, 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
Vide impugned Order, High Court refused to grant the relief of appointment to appellant on post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III in spite of holding that denial of such appointment was grossly illegal and arbitrary. Review petition filed against order dated 7th May, 2022, too was dismissed vide judgment dated 3rd August, 2022.
Findings of Court:
State Government shall hold enquiry and recover amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- from officer(s) who were responsible of taking deliberate, illegal, mala fide actions for denying relief to appellant.
Result : Appeals allowed.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has approached this Court by way of filing present appeals seeking to assail the impugned judgments dated 7th May, 2022 and 3rd August, 2022, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.1972 of 2019 and 799 of 2021 and Review Petition No.707 of 2022 respectively whereby, while allowing the writ appeal preferred by the respondent herein, the High Court refused to grant the relief of appointment to the appellant on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III in spite of holding that denial of such appointment was grossly illegal and arbitrary. The review petition filed against order dated 7th May, 2022, too was dismissed vide judgment dated 3rd August, 2022.
3. Detailed facts can be gathered from the impugned judgments and thus, the same need not be reiterated in detail. However, in nutshell, the controversy can be summarized in the following manner.
4. The appellant herein was appointed as an Instructor in the Non-Formal Educational Centre established by the State Government in the year 1990. She worked on the said post till 1st September, 1993. Later on, the State Government decided to abolish the post of Instructors. The State Government exercising powers conferred upon it by sub-Section(1) of Section 95 read with sub-Section(2) of Section 70 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 promulgated recruitment rules for the services of the Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-I, II and III in the name of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak(Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005(for short ‘Rules of 2005’).
5. The State Government conducted an examination for the selection of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III on 31st August, 2008. The appellant herein was permitted to participate in the examination and was declared passed. However, no appointment order was forthcoming in her favour, whereupon she served a legal notice to the concerned authority but to no avail. The Rules of 2005 were amended on 29th July, 2009 by a Gazette Notification whereby, sub Rule(2) was inserted in Rule 7-A to the effect that the candidates who were working on the post of Instructors in the Non- Formal Educational Centres were eligible to get appointment. The aforesaid amendment made the appellant ineligible to be appointed for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III as she had been discontinued from the job of Instructor with effect from 1st September, 1993 and accordingly, in view of the aforesaid amendment, the State Government denied appointment to the appellant herein which compelled her to institute litigation along with similarly situated ex-Instructors. The Writ Petition No. 91 of 2011 filed by the appellant was allowed on 21st February, 2012 whereby the notification dated 29th July, 2009 was quashed and a direction was given to the State Government to consider the case of the appellant for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III, in view of unamended criteria. Another Writ Petition No. 1578 of 2011 filed by the appellant was also allowed on 1st February, 2013. In spite thereof, the District Education Officer, Indore rejected the claim of the appellant for appointment which led to further litigation. Finally, the matter came up for consideration before the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Writ Appeal Nos.1972 of 2019 and 799 of 2021 which came to be disposed of with the following directions: -
A person is entitled to exemplary cost in case a rightful claim is denied to him/her for no reason.
Appointments must comply with stipulated qualifications; hence, prior erroneously granted approvals may be reversed to ensure adherence to legal standards.
Appointments made with proper oversight and approval cannot be deemed illegal solely due to procedural irregularities, especially when no disciplinary actions have been taken against the appointees.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
