IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OFASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
VIJAY BISHNOI, C.J., N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Junu Das - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Ors. – Respondents
WA 306 of 2023
Decided on : 21-11-2024
(A) Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1974 - Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977 - Appointment of teachers - The appellant claimed salary arrears from 06.12.1999, but the appointment was not valid as it was not made by the competent authority under the Rules. The court emphasized that the right to salary is contingent upon a valid appointment. The learned Single Judge's conclusions were upheld, affirming the need for adherence to statutory provisions in appointments. (Paras 20, 30)
(B) Right to Salary - The court reiterated that salary entitlement is dependent on lawful appointment, and arbitrary denial of salary violates Article 14 of the Constitution. (Paras 20, 30)
JUDGMENT :
(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J)
Heard Dr. R. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. N. J. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education Department appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5 and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department appearing for the respondent no. 4.
2. The present Intra Court Appeal has been instituted, assailing the Judgment & Order dated 28.04.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)6427/2017. The appellant herein, as petitioner, had instituted WP(C)6427/2017, praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities for release of her salaries which were in arrears since the date of her initial appointment i.e. w.e.f. 06.12.1999.
3. The appellant, herein, was appointed vide the order dated 06.12.1999 by the District Elementary Education Officer, Barpeta, as an Assistant Teacher and was posted at Kaurpara M. E. School. The appellant continued to serve in the said school; however, her salaries were not released. The petitioner had also highlighted that the Government in the Education had, vide a communication dated 19.12.2000, required the District Elementary Education, Barpeta to release the salaries of the appellant and other persons mentioned in the list annexed to the said communication. However, the salaries of the appellant were not released on account of the fact that in the said list, the name of the school wherein the appellant was appointed was wrongly reflected as “Adarsa Vidyapith M.E.”. The Government in the Elementary Education Department had constituted Screening Committees, for the purpose of screening the teachers, whose appointments were found to be either illegal and/or irregular. The appellant, in the year 2014, was required to appear before a Screening Committee for verification of her records. The Elementary Education Department, in terms of the recommendation of the Screening Committees proceeded to appoint teachers so recommended as “Tutors”, however, the name of the petitioner not having been recommended for such appointment by the constituted Screening Committee, the appellant was not extended with an appointment as “Tutor”. The appellant although was not released her salaries w.e.f. the date of her initial appointment i.e. w.e.f. 06.12.1999, she had not instituted any proceedings claiming her salaries, till instituting WP(C) No. 6427/2017.
4. The learned Single Judge upon examining the matter in details had vide order dated 28.04.2023, proceeded to draw the following conclusions:-
20. Be that as it may, it is relevant to take note of that this Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution would be in a position to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus for the purpose of directing the respondents to release the salary of the petitioner, provided that it is found that the petitioner was entitled to salary for the period she claims to be rendering service in connection with the affairs of the respondent Department. It is no longer res integra that the right to salary would depend upon an appointment being given to the person in accordance with law. Therefore, it is only in respect to a valid legal appointment, the right to salary accrues and a
The right to salary is contingent upon a valid appointment made in accordance with statutory provisions.
Valid appointments made under existing rules cannot be retroactively invalidated by later amendments or determinations of sanctioned strength.
The court upheld the necessity of verifying the genuineness of appointments in grant-in-aid institutions, emphasizing that forged documents cannot establish entitlement to salary from public funds.
Point of law: If the District Basic Education Officer does not communicate his decision within one month from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4), he shall be deemed to have accorded a....
The court upheld the rejection of salary claims based on findings that the petitioners' appointment letters were forged and the selection process did not comply with applicable recruitment rules.
The qualifications for appointment must be judged by the rules in force at the time of selection, not by subsequent amendments.
Salary claims in public service are contingent upon the legality of the appointment; illegal appointments do not confer entitlement to salary.
The court affirmed that appointments made prior to new qualification rules remain valid, emphasizing continuity of service and entitlement to salary for teachers who later acquired necessary qualific....
Deemed approval for teacher appointments under Rule 10(5) of U.P. recruitment rules entitles the petitioner to salary from the date of its occurrence, especially after the institution is recognized u....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.