Supreme Court Grants Relief To UP School Teachers Who Were Not Paid Salary For Alleged Manipulation In Securing Appointment
The Supreme Court allowed appeals filed by some teachers of a school in Uttar Pradesh whose salaries were halted in 2005.
The Court overturned the High Court's decision to cancel their selection in 2013 due to alleged manipulation.
The Court ordered the State to pay full salaries from June 25, 1999, to January 2002, and 50% of back wages from October 2005 onwards, affirming the validity of their appointments in continuous service with associated benefits.
The Bench comprising Justice J. K. Maheshwari and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed, “the State has no proof of commission of any malpractice by the appellants. The State approved their appointments, and the approval order till date has not been cancelled. The appointments have not been terminated. No action has been taken against the school and the school continues to receive the aid”.
Advocate Surender Kumar Gupta appeared for the Appellants and Advocate Sansriti Pathak appeared for the Respondents.
A school, established in 1983-1984 was a recognized unaided institution and encountered issues with sanctioned Assistant Teacher positions. It transitioned to an aided institution in 1998, and despite the District Basic Education Officer (Education Officer) permitting the advertisement for three Assistant Teacher positions, allegations of manipulation arose during the subsequent selection process.
The Appellants were appointed as Assistant Teachers in 1999. However, their salaries were abruptly stopped in 2005, leading them to file writ petitions seeking arrears and continuous payment. In 2013, the High Court (Single Judge) ruled in favour of cancelling the selection process due to alleged manipulation, despite a lack of evidence against the Appellants. The Division Bench also upheld the decision Aggrieved, the Appellants approached the Supreme Court challenging the order of the High Cout.
The Court noted that the correspondence between the School and the Directorate of Education led to the order, with a dispute arising over the number of sanctioned posts. The State contended that two posts were sanctioned, accusing the School of manipulation to make it three. Assuming the State's version was correct, the nominee of the State participated in the selection process, resulting in the empanelment of three appellants out of twelve candidates. The Appellants were appointed, and they served until September 2005.
Furthermore, the Court noted that despite the State acknowledging the absence of a termination order, the Appellants approached the High Court due to the stoppage of their salary. There is no evidence demonstrating the Appellants' collusion in the alleged manipulation, as they were open-market applicants.
Additionally, the Bench noted the report fails to mention any responsibility on the part of the Appellants, who were open-market applicants. The inquiry and criminal investigation revealed no evidence against them. Despite a direct inquiry, the State acknowledged that the Appellants were not accused in the criminal case. Furthermore, no action has been taken against the School, which continues to operate with grants-in-aid. The sole action taken was the filing of an FIR against the School's Manager, resulting in a subsequent charge sheet.
Additionally, the Court observed that during the inquiry, the Appellants were not afforded any opportunity to present their case. The inquiry, conducted without their involvement, did not establish any collusion or blame on their part for the alleged manipulation. As of now, the appointment order and the approval order remain valid, with no revocation.
The Bench noted that despite the absence of any guilt findings and a lack of material evidence, their salaries were halted from October 2005. Additionally, they were prevented from signing the regular attendance register.
The Bench observed that the FIR filed by the State did not level any allegations against the Appellants or other applicants. The FIR implicated only Senior Assistants in the office of the Education Officer, for the alleged disappearance of documents related to the approval of appointments/teacher listings from respective schools.
The Court framed the issue “Was the State justified in abruptly and without anything more, stopping the salary?”.
Assuming the State's case to be true, the Bench noted that the situation was that while the state-sanctioned two vacancies, the school recruited three. However, the State had no evidence of any malpractice by the Appellants. The State approved their appointments, and the approval order remains valid. The appointments have not been terminated, and no action has been taken against the school, which continues to receive aid.
The appellants had no blameworthy conduct and were bona fide applicants from the open market. The alleged wrongdoing, even according to the State, lies with the School and its Manager. The Bench observed that denying relief to the appellants would be a travesty of justice and cause enormous prejudice to them.
The Court overturned the impugned order, observing that the irregularities in the recruitment process were not limited to specific individuals' malpractice or unfair means. The Court emphasized that the Committee's report identified systemic deficiencies that raised serious doubts about the legitimacy of the entire recruitment process. In light of such systemic issues, the Court held that the government's decision to cancel the entire process was not irrational or arbitrary.
The Court held that the Appellants were not at fault, and the State's abrupt stoppage of their salaries was unwarranted. The State was directed to pay the Appellants' salaries in full from June 25, 1999, to January 2002, and 50% of the back wages from October 2005 until the present. The Appellants were declared to be in continuous service with all associated benefits, and the State was instructed to implement these directives within four weeks.
Additionally, the Court granted liberty to the Committee of Management, Junior High School to issue a show-cause notice to address the alleged manipulation charges. After an inquiry, if found guilty, the Committee may be liable to contribute one-third of the ordered arrears.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeals and set aside the impugned judgments.
Cause Title: Radhey Shyam Yadav & Anr. Etc. v State Of U.P. & Ors (2024 INSC 7)
