1. Appointment to teacher post under specific quota — Termination and salary recovery based on eligibility dispute regarding government-aided minority school status. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1725
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, CJI., K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Rajesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11875 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21752 of 2024)
Decided On : 16-09-2025
Important Points
Administrative errors should not penalize an employee; reinstatement ordered despite eligibility issues based on peculiar circumstances.
Subject
Employment Law - Employment Termination and Reinstatement
Headnote
(A) Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission Act - Advertisement for Trained Graduate Teacher posts - Eligibility criteria considered - Reservation specified only for teachers of Government Elementary Schools having a minimum of five years' experience - Appellant from a Government-aided Minority School deemed ineligible despite being selected from the recruitment process. (Paras 4-28)
(B) Employment Law - Employment termination - No employee should be penalized for administrative errors made by authorities that led to their appointment. (Paras 20, 25, 28)
(C) Appeal - Court's consideration of equity and peculiar circumstances in employment cases - Reinstatement ordered though eligibility was not formally met. (Paras 24, 30)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, employed in a minority school, applied for a position reserved for Government Elementary School teachers based on his experience. Despite a successful selection process, his appointment was rescinded after nearly a year, leading to this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The appellant’s dismissal on technical grounds was reversed in light of the circumstances and previous validation of his eligibility.
Issues: The core issues included the appellant’s eligibility based on the nature of his previous employment and the consequences of the administrative decisions on his current circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the administrative actions leading to the appellant’s employment should not result in penalizing him for errors made by the selection committee.
Result: Appeal allowed; appellant reinstated without back wages.
(B) Employment Law - Employment termination - No employee should be penalized for administrative errors made by authorities that led to their appointment. (Paras 20, 25, 28)
(C) Appeal - Court's consideration of equity and peculiar circumstances in employment cases - Reinstatement ordered though eligibility was not formally met. (Paras 24, 30)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, employed in a minority school, applied for a position reserved for Government Elementary School teachers based on his experience. Despite a successful selection process, his appointment was rescinded after nearly a year, leading to this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The appellant’s dismissal on technical grounds was reversed in light of the circumstances and previous validation of his eligibility.
Issues: The core issues included the appellant’s eligibility based on the nature of his previous employment and the consequences of the administrative decisions on his current circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the administrative actions leading to the appellant’s employment should not result in penalizing him for errors made by the selection committee.
Result: Appeal allowed; appellant reinstated without back wages.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner(s) M. Mohini Priya, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Mohini Priya, AOR
For Petitioner(s) M. Mohini Priya, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Mohini Priya, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Eligibility of teachers from government-aided minority schools for quotas reserved for government elementary school teachers — Equivalence of aided minority schools with government schools. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
3. Technical ineligibility outweighed by the fact that multiple state authorities vetted the candidate and directed appointment, leading the candidate to resign from previous employment. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
4. A candidate cannot be penalized for administrative errors by selection and appointing authorities when the candidate acted upon such appointments to their detriment. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 )
5. Termination and recovery orders quashed — Reinstatement with continuity of service granted without back wages. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
6. Can a candidate be penalized for the mistakes of a selection commission or appointing authority?
No. If the candidate acted on the appointment order, such as by leaving a previous job, and the appointment was vetted by multiple authorities, they cannot be penalized for administrative errors. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
7. Are government-aided minority schools considered equivalent to government elementary schools for quota eligibility?
Strictly speaking, no. The court observed that a quota reserved specifically for teachers working in government elementary schools does not include those working in government-aided minority schools. (Para 18 , 21 )
8. Does reinstatement with continuity of service automatically entitle an employee to back wages?
No. The court may order reinstatement with continuity of service for all purposes, including terminal benefits, while specifically denying back wages for the period the employee remained out of employment. (Para 30 )
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, CJI.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 14th May, 2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Letters Patent Appeal No. 398 of 2023 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant. By the said judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the judgment and order dated 19th April, 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in W.P.(S) No. 3391 of 2020, whereby the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant.
3. This appeal arises out of peculiar facts and circumstances.
4. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission issued an advertisement thereby inviting applications for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in Government Secondary Schools in the State of Jharkhand. As per the said advertisement, 25 per cent of the posts were reserved for the teachers of Government Primary Schools of Jharkhand having experience of minimum five years.
5. At the relevant time, the appellant was working in a minority school, which was fully (100 per cent) Government- aided.
6. Presuming himself to be eligible for appointment to the post of TGT under the aforesaid 25 per cent quota, the appellant submitted his application pursuant to the said advertisement.
7. It is not in dispute that the appellant was serving in St.Teresa Girls Middle School, Dudhani, Dumka, since 2nd April, 2008 and his appointment was confirmed by the Director, Primary Education vide Memo No. 1148 dated 27th May, 2009.
8. The appellant, while submitting the application, had also obtained ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Office of the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka.
9. In the selection process, the appellant was found to be successful and his name was also recommended for appointment to the said post. However, since the appointment letter was not issued, the appellant preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Jharkhand being W.P.(S) No. 897 of 2019.
10. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the appellant’s case was considered by the District Education Establishment Committee, Dumka in its meeting dated 19th October, 2019. The District Education Establishment Committee found the appellant to be eligible and directed appointment letter to be issued to the appellant. Therefore, an appointment letter was issued to the appellant on 24th October, 2019. In pursuance to which, the appellant had joined the post of TGT on 26th October, 2019.
11. Since the appellant was appointed, the W.P.(S) No. 897 of 2019 filed by the appellant had been rendered infructuous and as such, the same was disposed of.
12. However, the appellant’s services came to be terminated after almost a year vide Office Order dated 7th September, 2020. Thereafter, on 12th September, 2020 vide another Office Order the salary drawn by the appellant during the entirety of his service was sought to be recovered.
13. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court by way of a W.P.(S) No. 3391 of 2020 and the said writ petition came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 19th April, 2023.
14. The appellant thereafter preferred an appeal, which too came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court, by the impugned judgment and order.
15. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed.
16. Heard Mr. Adarsh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Sudhir Bisla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.
17. Mr. Adarsh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant was working in a 100 per cent Government-Aided Minority School and as such was very much eligible for the 25 per cent quota for the teachers working in Government Elementary Schools. He submitted that it is not in dispute that the appellant possessed the requisite experience and qualification.
18. Mr. Sudhir Bisla, learned counsel for the respondent has vehementl
