Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand and ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sulami Soy wife of Bonifas Topno and ors. – Respondents
L.P.A. No.244 of 2019
Decided On : 25-04-2024
EMPLOYMENT - TEACHER APPOINTMENT - Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Letters Patent Appeal - The court discussed the principles of employment law, particularly regarding the approval of teacher appointments and the implications of termination without sanctioned posts. The court emphasized the importance of prior judicial decisions, particularly the Jharkhand Education Tribunal's ruling that quashed the petitioner's termination, which established her right to be recognized as an employee despite the state's claims of non-availability of sanctioned posts. The court's decision was influenced by the need to uphold the rule of law and the finality of previous judgments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher at Lutheran Girls High School in 1996 after successfully passing the selection process. Her appointment was delayed in terms of official approval, and she faced termination in 2002, which was later quashed by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal. Despite reinstatement, her salary was not paid, leading her to file a writ petition challenging the state's refusal to approve her appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been appointed against a sanctioned post and that her termination was illegal. The Director's refusal to approve her appointment was deemed unjustified, especially given the prior ruling of the Jharkhand Education Tribunal, which had already established her employment rights.
Issues: Whether the Director of Secondary Education could deny approval of the petitioner's appointment based on the claim of non-availability of sanctioned posts, despite previous judicial rulings affirming her employment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once a judicial decision has established the legality of an appointment, the same grounds cannot be used to deny approval of that appointment. The principle of 'No work No Pay' was also applied, allowing for the payment of salary for the period of service, excluding the time of illegal termination.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision of the learned Single Judge to quash the Director's order and directing the payment of the petitioner's salary.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer
1. The instant intra-court appeal is under Clause-10 of Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 25.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5621 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 19.12.2008 passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, has been quashed and set aside with a direction to make payment of arrears as well as current salary as the petitioner has been working in the School w.e.f. 01.04.1996 excluding the period from 08.07.2002 to 25.07.2007 on the principle of ‘No work No Pay’.
Facts
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition, are required to be enumerated, which reads as under:-
3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that in pursuance to the advertisement, published by the Secretary, Lutheran Girls High School, Govindpur, Ranchi in local newspaper ‘Ranchi Express’, dated 23.11.1995, inviting application for appointment of Graduate trained girl’s teacher in the subject of English including Geography for one post, the writ petitioner fulfilling the eligibility criteria made her application along with others for the aforesaid post and thereafter written examination and interview was held by the Selection Committee and after participating in the said written examination and interview, the petitioner stood first and as such, the Managing Committee in its proceeding dated 12.03.1996 took a decision to appoint the petitioner against the vacant post of Assistant teacher of English subject in the scale of Rs.1640-2900/-. In pursuance to the appointment letter dated 20.03.1996, the petitioner gave her joining on 1.4.1996 and the petitioner’s joining was duly accepted in the aforesaid school.
4. Thereafter, the concerned District Education Officer, Ranchi and the District School Inspectress, Ranchi have been informed by the Secretary of the said School for necessary action. It has been further stated that the District Education Officer, Ranchi vide letter dated 22.04.1997 wrote to the Secretary, School Service Board, Patna with regard to approval of the aforesaid appointment of the petitioner and in pursuance of the aforesaid letter, the Secretary, School Service Board, Patna vide letter dated 24.3.1999 sought some notification and besides other relevant documents, the District Education Officer, Ranchi vide letter dated 25.06.1999 provided the rectified report to the Secretary, School Service Board, Patna on obtaining the same from the School Management and in spite of the aforesaid fact, the decision regarding approval, remained pending before the said authority. Since the matter regarding approval of the petitioner’s appointment was being delayed, the petitioner filed writ application being W.P. (S) No. 2724 of 2002.
5. However, in the meantime, vide letter dated 6.7.2002, the Secretary of the said School terminated the petitioner’s services. The petitioner withdrew the aforesaid writ application on 31.08.2006 and moved before the Jharkhand Education Tribunal in Case No. 68/2006 (JET) challenging the aforesaid illegal termination order passed by the Secretary of the said School and the learned Tribunal vide order dated 10.01.2007 has quashed the termination order dated 6.7.2002 and directed to make payment in favour of the petitioner in the same scale in which the petitioner was appointed.
6. The School Management preferred A.C. (S.B.) No. 07 of 2007 and L.P.A No. 232 of 2007 before this Court and vide orders dated 26.04.2007 and 06.07.2007, the said AC (SB) and the L.P.A. respectively were dismissed by this Hon’ble Court. Thereafter, the petitioner gave her joining in the aforesaid School on 26.07.2007 and since then she has been continuing there and is imparting teaching work to the satisfaction of the school authorities, which is evident from the certificate dated 5.2.2011, issued by the Secretary of the said School and inspite of t
The court reaffirmed that judicial decisions regarding employment rights must be respected, and that grounds for termination or denial of appointment must be substantiated with valid evidence, partic....
Long-standing appointments cannot be invalidated without evidence of wrongdoing, emphasizing stability in employment.
Valid appointments made under existing rules cannot be retroactively invalidated by later amendments or determinations of sanctioned strength.
The power of review/revision can only be exercised if provided under the statute. The reservation policy is not required to be followed in minority schools.
The main legal point established is that routine affairs of an institution, including appointments and approvals, should be considered independently of disputes in management.
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
