Service Law – Assistant Teachers – Appointment of – The Contempt Petition sought enforcement of interim orders dated 17.12.2014, 25.2.2015 and 7.12.2015 and the Judgment and final order dated 25.7.2017 – There were total 72,825 vacancies for the post of Assistant teachers and against the said posts 43,077 were appointed, 15,058 were undergoing training – In pursuance of the interim orders total 66,655 teachers were appointed – In 2018, Contempt Petitions were filed submitting that though the State made clear representation that the qualified persons would be appointed, it did not appoint the Contempt Petitioners and as such the orders passed by the Supreme Court were violated – It was contended that the State Government had incorrectly calculated figure of 66,655, there was no objection to issue appointment orders in respect of 12,091 candidates, including Contempt Petitioners – Held: According to the Affidavit dated 01.10.2016, out of 12091 candidates, only 391 candidates were appointed as the others either did not take part in the selection process or had not opted for certain Districts or could not be selected going by the cut-off for the concerned District – Thereafter, the State published another advertisement on 06.02.2016 and 08.02.2016 so that if any candidate was left out, his candidature could be considered – Thus, the reasons for not appointing all the persons who were part of list of 12,091 candidates were available on record from October 2016 onwards – At no stage any grievance was made till the matter was disposed of in July 2017 which gave a status of permanency – The grievance was made for the first time almost a year after when these contempt petitions were filed – Nothing substantial pointed out by any of candidates or contempt petitions – Nothing wrong in the process undertaken by the State Government in pursuance of various interim orders passed by the Supreme Court – Therefore, Contempt petitions directed to be closed. Closing the Contempt petitions, the Court
HELD: 1. The exercise of selecting those who had secured minimum marks in terms of criteria devised by order dated 17.12.2014 also resulted in finding 12,091 persons eligible subject to verification of antecedents, as was recorded in the order dated 07.12.2015. [Para 11 (d)] [1128-B]
2. The list of these 12091 candidates was published and it is a matter of record that the names of the contempt petitioners were part of this list. [Para 11 (e)] [1128-C]
3. According to para 21 of the Affidavit dated 01.10.2016 (which has been referred to in the order dated 22.07.2019) out of these 12091 candidates, only 391 candidates could be appointed as the others either did not take part in the selection process or had not opted for certain Districts or could not be selected going by the cut-off for the concerned District. This development had happened way back in October 2016 and the affidavit was on record since then. [Para 11 (f)] [1128-D]
4. The State thereafter published another advertisement on 06.02.2016 so that if any candidate was left out, his candidature could be considered. Steps were thereafter taken and another advertisement was published on 08.02.2016. Para
25 of the Affidavit dated 01.10.2016 as quoted in the order dated 22.07.2019, dealt with this issue in clear terms and was thus part of the record. [Para 11 (g)] [1128-E-F]
5. Aforesaid para 25 of the Affidavit thus made it clear that as on the date when the affidavit was filed, 64,257 vacancies were filled up and 1,536 appointment letters were being issued in addition. It was also stated that 862 candidates were given adhoc appointments in terms of the order dated 07.12.2015 and were not included in the number of 64,257. These three figures aggregate to number 66,655. [Para 11 (h)] [1128-G-H]
6. Thus, the reasons for not appointing all the persons who were part of list of 12,091 candidates were available on record from October 2016 onwards. [Para 11 (i)] [1129-A]
7. At no stage any grievance was made till the matter was disposed of in July 2017 which gave the status of permanency to those who were appointed under various interim orders passed by this Court. [Para 11 (j)] [1129-B]
8. The grievance was made for the first time almost a year after when these contempt petitions were filed. [Para 11 (k)] [1129-B]
9. The order dated 22.07.2019 had, therefore, observed that the Court could not disregard the fact that challenge had been raised more than a year after the final Judgment. Even then, the State Government was called upon to indicate on affidavit certain issues. The reason was obvious that if there was large scale infraction of interim orders passed by this Court which merged in the final Judgment, the matter could still have been considered. [Para 11 (l)] [1129-C-D]
10. However, the response filed by the State Government now indicates with clarity that no fresh appointments were effected after 2016 and no person other than those who satisfied the requirements laid down by this Court in its Order dated 27.07.2015 as modified by further orders, was given any appointment. The State Government has also placed on record the District wise break-up of all candidates appointed in various categories in all 75 Districts of the State. Nothing substantial was pointed out by any of the candidates or contempt petitioners. [Para 11 (m)] [1129-E]
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.