Share :
SUPREME COURT FINES MADHYA PRADESH GOVERNMENT FOR DENYING APPOINTMENT TO TEACHER
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India recently imposed a fine of ₹10,00,000 (Ten Lakh Rupees) on the Madhya Pradesh Government for disobeying a High Court order and unjustly denying a valid appointment to a ‘Samvida Shikshak’ (contract teacher). The ruling is a significant affirmation of the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring lawful entitlements and holding government officials accountable for their actions.
CASE BACKGROUND
The appellant who was a qualified candidate for the position of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III had passed the selection exam on August 31, 2008. Despite this, she had been deprived of her rightful appointment by the state government, which invoked an amended rule, Rule 7-A, issued on July 29, 2009. This rule, however, had no retrospective application. The High Court had struck down this rule and issued repeated orders in favour of the appellant, yet the state government continued to deny her appointment.
In a further effort to bypass the court’s orders, the state government issued one more notification on March 21, 2018, making the amended rule effective from January 1, 2008, predating the appellant’s recruitment. This move was seen as a deliberate effort to prevent the appellant and her peers from their lawful claims to appointments that had been solidified long before.
SUPREME COURT’S OBSERVATIONS
The Supreme Court bench, comprising of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, in a landmark decision reversed the High Court’s Division Bench order that had denied restitutive relief to the appellant. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had acknowledged the wrongful denial of the appellant’s appointment, which contravened its own order, however it had failed to provide appropriate relief. The bench also emphasized in its order that the appellant was illegally deprived of her lawful entitlement and deserved certain compensatory relief.
Justice Sandeep Mehta, in the judgment, highlighted the state government’s actions as an attempt to bypass High Court orders, describing them as efforts to prevent the appellant from her rightful appointment by “hook or by crook.”
REFERENCE TO PRECEDENTS
The Supreme Court drew parallels with the case of MANOJ KUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, where the Delhi High court provided restitutive relief to the appellant for the prolonged litigation and suffering caused by the arbitrary actions of the state officials. Similarly, in VANSH V. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION & MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, the court granted restitutive relief to a candidate who was unjustly deprived of admission to an MBBS course due to insensitive and illegal actions of the respondents.
DECISION OF THE COURT
In its ruling, the Supreme Court issued the following directives:
- Immediate Appointment: The appellant must be appointed to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III or an equivalent post within 60 days.
- Effective Appointment Date: The appointment will be effective from the date the first appointment order pursuant to the selection process dated August 31, 2008, was issued.
- Continuity in Service: The appellant is entitled to continuity in service but not back wages. Instead, she is awarded an exemplary cost of ₹10,00,000.
- Recovery of Costs: The state government must hold an enquiry and recover the ₹10,00,000 from the officials responsible for the deliberate, illegal, and mala fide actions that denied relief to the appellant.
ANALYSIS
Through its ruling the Supreme Court has made it very clear that it will not tolerate deliberate and illegal actions by any government official who denies the individuals their lawful rights. By taking measures such as imposing a substantial fine and ensuring that the responsible officials are held accountable, the court aims to deter such behaviour in the future and ensure justice for those who have been wronged by bureaucratic malfeasance. This decision not only upholds the appellant’s rights but also reinforces the importance of judicial orders and the rule of law in maintaining a just and fair administrative process.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
