Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.
The State Of Assam And Anr - Appellant
Versus
Smti Sikha Das Gupta (Roy) And 24 Ors – Respondents
Review.Pet.60 of 2018
Decided on : 28-04-2023
REVIEW - Writ Petition for Salary Payment - Section 114 CPC, Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC - The court discussed the provisions of Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, which govern the grounds for review of judgments. The court emphasized that a review can only be granted on the basis of new evidence or an error apparent on the face of the record. The court found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any such grounds, particularly in light of the findings from the Screening Committee that identified the respondents as illegally appointed teachers. This legal framework influenced the court's decision to dismiss the review petition.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents, who were Assistant Teachers appointed in various Lower Primary Schools, filed a writ petition seeking payment of their salaries that had been stopped since January 1997. The court had previously directed the state to pay their arrear salaries. The state later filed a review petition arguing that the respondents were illegally appointed and thus not entitled to salary.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the review petitioners did not provide sufficient grounds for review, as they failed to demonstrate that the previous judgment was vitiated by fraud or that new evidence warranted a change in the decision. The court noted that the respondents were identified as illegally appointed teachers by the Screening Committee, but this was not a valid ground for review as it did not constitute new evidence at the time of the original judgment.
Issues: Whether the judgment dated 16.06.2016 was vitiated by fraud or whether subsequent findings regarding the illegal appointment of the respondents constituted valid grounds for review.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record or new evidence that could not have been presented earlier. The findings of the Screening Committee regarding the illegal appointments did not meet these criteria, and the absence of necessary parties in the review petition further undermined its maintainability.
Final Decision: The review petition was dismissed on the grounds of both merit and maintainability, with the court concluding that the petitioners failed to establish any valid grounds for review.
JUDGMENT :
KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.
Heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department, representing the two review petitioners. Also heard Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel for all the 25 respondents.
2. The respondents herein are the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) 5032/2007, by which the respondents had prayed, amongst others, for a direction upon the authorities for payment of salary for the period the respondents had rendered their service. By judgment and order dated 16.06.2016, this Court had allowed the writ petition by directing as follows:-
17. In view of the above, all the three writ petitions stand allowed and the impugned order dated 17.08.2007 passed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department, is set aside. No costs.”
3. The learned standing counsel for the petitioners has referred to the statement made in this review petition and has submitted that the case of the respondents was that (i) following advertisement of 1991 and select list dated 22.06.1992, (ii) following advertisement of 1995 and select list dated 18.08.1995, and (iii) select list dated 24.04.1998, they were appointed as Assistant Teachers (ATs for short) in various Lower Primary Schools in Karimganj District pursuant to selection made by the Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board for Elementary Education, Karimganj. They were paid monthly salary till January, 1997 and thereafter, their salaries were stopped. Resultantly, the respondents had filed W.P.(C) Nos. 5277/2003, 5363/2003, and 5276/2003. The said writ petitions were disposed of by order dated 18.07.2003, by directing the State authorities to examine their claim and that if on examination, the respondents were found to be legally entitled to arrear pay and allowance, which had been held up since February, 1997, the same was directed to be released. Direction was also issued to the State to consider the case of the respondents to adjust their service against non-plan vacant post in accordance with law. The authorities had submitted a proposal in Finance (SIU) format to the Education Department for regularisation of the service of the respondents. The Government examined the proposal and the same was rejected by order dated 17.08.2007 on the ground that as per the report dated 04.09.2003 by the Inspector of Schools, the respondents were appointed in non-existent/ non-sanctioned posts and as the appointment was illegal/ irregular, there was no scope for adjusting the service of the respondents against non-plan posts since they were appointed illegally.
4. It has been submitted that there were a lot of anomalies in the appointment of the respondents, which amounted to illegality because the Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board for Elementary Education, Karimganj was constituted by notification dated 20.01.1995 and therefore, they could not have selected the respondents in the year 1992. It has been submitted that pursuant to the judgment and order dated 02.03.2010, passed the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 1048/2004 – Manoj Kumar Sarma v. State of Assam & Ors., the State authorities had undertaken an exercise to screen the ATs who were appointed in Lower Primary and Upper Primary Schools during the year 1989 to 2001 and large scale illegal appointments were detected. It has been submitted that 5 (five) Screening Committees were constituted und
A review of a judgment can only be granted on the basis of new and important evidence or an error apparent on the face of the record; findings that arise after the judgment do not constitute valid gr....
The court ruled that past employment irregularities do not excuse non-payment of salaries owed under earlier judicial orders, establishing a duty to pay on the principle of quantum meruit.
Appointments made without following statutory rules are deemed illegal, and such appointees are not entitled to claim salaries or relief under the Constitution.
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.
The court ruled that petitioners, selected as teachers under the Operation Blackboard scheme, must be reinstated due to the invalidation of cancellation orders without substantial proof of misconduct....
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
