Brief facts:- From the record, it appears that the School started as a recognized unaided school in 1983-1984 with one post of Head Master, four posts of Assistant Teacher, three posts of Peon and one post of Clerk. On 07.10.1996, two posts of Assistant Teacher were increased, raising the sanctioned strength of Assistant Teacher to six. Thereafter, responding to the letter of the School, the District Basic Education Officer by his letter of 20.11.1998 accorded permission to issue advertisement for appointment of three posts of Assistant Teachers. Topic It is not disputed that by an order of 09.06.1999, the District Basic Education Officer granted approval for the appointment of the appellants. In the writ petitions, the prayer was for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the arrears of salary from July, 1999 to January, 2002 and continue to pay salary from October, 2005. It was also held that since forgery was committed by the persons involved in the selection of Assistant Teachers and since the selection process was not fair, being based on a forged letter, the candidates who were selected in the selection process are not entitled to be appointed and retained on the post of Assistant Teacher, and holding so, the writ petitions were dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellants, after placing a comprehensive overview of the facts, vehemently contended that there was no fault on the part of the appellants and for any wrong computation of vacancy, the appellants ought not to be prejudiced.
The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., 2023:INSC:1007 = 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1485. Sansriti Pathak, learned counsel for the State vehemently defended the impugned judgment. According to the State, two posts were, in fact, sanctioned and it was the School that manipulated it, to make it three. It was mentioned that there was involvement of Shri Ram Dular Yadav, Principal, Shri Triloki Nath Singh, Manager of the school, the erstwhile District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur and also the officials of the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur.
On being further asked as to whether any action has been taken against the School, she replied that no action has been taken.
(4) In the aforesaid post creation order of the Directorate dated 26.12.1997, the Manager of the institute, showing 03 (three) posts of Assistant Teachers fraudulently and obtained approval for appointment of 03 Assistant Teachers S/Shri Lal Chand Kharwar, Radhey Shyam Yadav and Ravinder Nath from District, Jaunpur vide letter No B-2/1313-14/99-2000 dated 9.6.98.
Arth(4)/2310-13/2004-05 dated 19.11.2004, the District, Jaunpur was directed that in the post creation order in question the Manager of the institute had fraudulently mentioned three posts while in the post creation order dated 28.12.1997 only two posts of Assistant Teachers have been sanctioned.
On the aforesaid two letters of the Directorate no action was taken by the then District, Jaunpur which prima facie shows that the erstwhile District, Jaunpur and his office in collusion with the Manager of the school, had taken steps for appointment/approval in the school in which the involvement of Shri Ram Dular Yadav, Principal, Shri Triloki Nath Singh, Manager of the institute, the erstwhile District, Jaunpur and the officials of the office of District, Jaunpur, is clearly visible.
The same be counted and action for proportionate recovery be taken against the guilty erstwhile District/erstwhile Finance and Accounts Officer, Basic Education and the concerned Desk Officer by the Director of Education (Basic) as per the settled procedure and steps taken to terminate the services of illegally appointed Assistant Teachers S/Shri Lala Chand Kharwar, Radhey Shyam Yadav and Ravindra Nath Yadav.” In the inquiry, the appellants were not given any opportunity. lodged by the State on 17.07.2015 also, there is no allegation against the appellants or any other applicants and only two persons were named in that F.I.R. Assuming the case of the State to be true and taking it at its highest, the factual position would come to this, namely, that while the State sanctioned two vacancies, the school went ahead and recruited three. The Industrial Court reversing the findings of the Labour Court, quashed the termination of the respondent therein and directed reinstatement. The said Industrial Court also noticed the fact that the termination of the respondent was based on a show- cause notice issued on 5-7-1999 which was replied to by the respondent on 17-7-1999 and the termination was made in a summary procedure permissible under Rule 90( b ) of the Service Regulations. It also noticed from the evidence of Mr Waghmare, Social Welfare Officer who sent the proposal before the Labour Court that he did not utter a single word as to whether the said supplementary list was ever called for by the department concerned or not.
Since there is no such material on record, on the facts of the instant case, the Industrial Court and the High Court have come to the right conclusion that the alleged fraud has not been established by the appellants, hence, this is not a fit case in which interference is called for. The High Court directed reinstatement of the writ petitioners after taking into account the fact that they were beneficiaries of the select list that was prepared in an irregular manner. State of Chhattisgarh, (2013) 14
SCC 494 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 100], where this Court considered that the appellants therein were appointed due to an error committed by the respondents in the matter of valuation of answer scripts.
State of Chhattisgarh, (2013) 14 SCC 494 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 100], we are in agreement with the High Court that the writ petitioners are entitled to the relief granted. If, therefore, in spite of placing all his cards before the selection committee, the selection committee for some reason or the other had thought it fit to choose him for the post and the 2nd respondent had chosen to acquiesce in the appointment, it would be inequitous to make him suffer for the same now. Such of those candidates as may be ultimately found to be entitled to issue of appointment letters on the basis of their merit shall benefit by such re-evaluation and shall pick up their appointments on that basis according to their inter se position on the merit list. The appellants have been selected quite some time back and the first appellant has been promoted to a higher grade. In this process of their selection and appointment (which has obviously benefitted them), nothing has been brought to our notice which may suggest any favouritism, nepotism or so-called blame as to the conduct of these two appellants, in securing these appointments.
What the High Court never answered was as to how much of this blame of “illegal” selection and appointment would rest on the High Court (on its administrative side). (2023) SCC OnLine SC 994 though the finding arrived at by this Court was that the Rules of the game were changed by the High Court of Kerala by prescribing minimum marks for the viva voce, which were not existing in the Rules and therefore in essence the appointment itself was in violation of the Rules, yet considering that those persons who had secured appointments under this selection have now been working for more than 6 years it was held that it would not be in public interest to unseat them.” Sansriti Pathak, learned counsel, who ably defended the case for the State, made a valiant attempt to draw support from the judgment in Sachin Kumar (supra). The first Committee which enquired found that there were serious irregularities including cheating and impersonation in the course of both Tier 1 Screening examination and Tier 2 Main examination.
Reversing the judgment of the Tribunal and the High Court, this Court held that the irregularities were not confined to acts of malpractice or unfair means on the part of specific group of persons and that the report of the Committee found deficiencies of a systemic nature which cast serious doubts on the legitimacy of the entire process of recruitment.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/courts-analysis-in-disciplinary-case/
Sachin Kumar (supra) falls in that genre of cases concerning validity of cancellation of the selection process due to largescale irregularities. We notice from the record that the Committee of Management, Junior High School, Bahorikpur was arrayed as fifth respondent in the writ petition before the High Court. In the event of them being found guilty of the charge, in view of any finding that may be arrived that the manipulation prior to the recruitment was done at the level of the employees of the school (whether by themselves or in collusion with the officials), we grant liberty to the State to recover from the Committee of Management one-third of the arrears, as ordered to be paid, hereinabove. (J.K.
Case Title: RADHEY SHYAM YADAV Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2024 INSC 7)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000020-000021 / 2024
