'Adamant & High-Handed Approach': SC Directs MP Govt. To Pay 10L Costs To Eligible Candidate Who Was Denied Appointment
|The Supreme Court allowed appeal of a female candidate who was denied appointment to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III in spite of having passed the selection exam.
The said woman had challenged the judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High Court by which it refused to grant the relief of appointment to her despite holding that denial of such appointment was grossly illegal and arbitrary.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “It is a glaring case wherein the adamant, arbitrary, mala fide and high-handed approach of the State Government and its officials has driven the appellant to a series of prolonged litigations which were evidently not out of her choice. In spite of having passed the selection exam held for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III way back on 31st August, 2008, the appellant did not reap the fruits of her success.”
The Bench added that despite recognising all the unjustified orders faced by the candidate, the Division Bench failed to provide restitutive relief to her even after holding that she was illegally deprived of her lawful entitlement.
Advocate L.C. Patne appeared for the appellant while AAG Ankita Chaudhary appeared for the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The appellant woman (candidate) was appointed as an Instructor in the Non-Formal Educational Centre established by the State Government in the year 1990 and she worked on the said post till 1993. Later, the State Government decided to abolish the said post promulgated recruitment rules for the services of the Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-I, II and III in the name of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005. The State then conducted an exam for the Grade-III post in 2008 and the appellant was permitted to participate in the same.
She was declared passed but no appointment order was forthcoming in her favour, whereupon she served a legal notice to the concerned authority but no avail. Due to the amendment in 2005 Rules, the appellant became ineligible to be appointed for the said post and hence, she was denied appointment. This compelled her to institute litigation along with similarly situated ex-Instructors and the writ petition was allowed whereby the notification of the government was quashed. A direction was given to consider the appellant’s case but in spite thereof, the District Education Officer, Indore rejected her claim which led to further litigation. The High Court refused to grant relief and hence, she was before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts said, “There is no dispute that the appellant is presently of 59 years of age and can hold the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III till the age of 62 years. The High Court took note of the fact that despite a clear-cut finding that the amended rule would not apply in the case of the appellant, the State Government has rejected her legitimate claim by relying on the amended rule. The High Court, on the one hand, thought it fit to proceed with contempt action against the erring officers of the State Government, but at the same time, denied relief to the appellant on the basis of notification dated 21st March, 2018 which makes the amended rule i.e. Rule 7-A effective retrospectively i.e., with effect from 1st January, 2008.”
The Court noted that the observation of the High Court was in sheer contravention of the findings and conclusions recorded earlier and hence, the appellant deserves a direction for restitutive relief along with compensation for the misery piled upon her owing to the arbitrary and high-handed action of the State Government and its officials.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeals, directed the appointment of the appellant within 60 days, and imposed a cost of Rs. 10 lakhs on the State Government.
Cause Title- Smita Shrivastava v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 378)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate L.C. Patne and AOR Rekha Pandey.
Respondents: AAG Ankita Chaudhary, AOR Mrinal Gopal Elker, Advocate Saurabh Singh, AOR Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Advocates Mirza Kayesh Begg, Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Astik Gupta, Akanksha Tomar, Argha Roy, Ojaswini Gupta, and Ruby.