Service Law – Recruitment – Stoppage of salary – The District Basic Education Officer case was that by order dated 26.12.1997, only two additional posts of Assistant Teacher were created by the Joint Director of Education – It was averred that manipulation was made by the management in collusion with the appellants to show that three posts of Assistant Teacher were sanctioned – From October, 2005, abruptly salaries of appellants were stopped – Propriety:
Held: Apart from the bare allegation, absolutely no material was placed on record to show how the appellants, who were the applicants from the open market, had colluded or were blameworthy for any manipulation – According to the State, two posts were, in fact, sanctioned and it was the School that manipulated it, to make it three – Even according to the State, admittedly, till date there is no order terminating their services – In an inquiry report initiated pursuant to the directions of the High Court, it was found that the Manager of the School had fraudulently changed the number of posts from two to three in the order dated 26.12.1997 and accordingly, an FIR was filed against the manager – There were no findings of collusion or blameworthiness against appellants for the alleged manipulation – Appellants were bona fide applicants from the open market – The alleged mischief, even according to the State, was at the end of the School and its Manager – In the light of the various Supreme Court decisions, it will be travesty of justice if relief is denied to the appellants – Appellants were not at fault and the State could not have abruptly stopped their salaries – Accordingly, the State directed to pay salaries to the appellants for the period from 25.06.1999 till January, 2002 in full – Also, the State directed that insofar as the period from October, 2005 till today is concerned, the State shall pay the appellants 50% of the backwages – The State also directed to allow the appellants to commence work. [Paras 8, 14, 16, 30, 34, 35] List of Citations and Other References
Chief Engineer, M.S.E.B and Another vs. Suresh Raghunath Bhokare, (2005)10 SCC 465; Vikas Pratap Singh and Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., [2013] 10 SCR 1114:(2013) 14 SCC 494; Anmol Kumar Tiwari and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2021 INSC 101: (2021) 5 SCC 424; Dr. M.S. Mudhol and Another vs. S.D. Halegkar and Others, [1993] 1 Suppl. SCR 115:(1993) 3 SCC 591; Rajesh Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, [2013] 4 SCR 753:(2013) 4 SCC 690; K. Ameer Khan and Anr. Vs. A. Gangadharan and Ors., (2001) 9 SCC 84; Sivanandan C.T. and Others vs. High Court of Kerala and Ors., (2023) SCC OnLine SC 994 – relied on.
Sachin Kumar and Ors. Vs. Delhi Subordinate
Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and Ors. [2021]
2 SCR 1073:2021 INSC 147: 2021 (4) SCC 631 – distinguished.
Vivek Kaisth and Anr. Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., 2023 INSC 1007:2023 SCC OnLine SC
1485 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.