Bihar Municipal Body Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006: r. 10 – Appointment on compassionate ground – On facts, respondents granted compassionate appointment on the post of Nagar Shikshak in terms of r. 10 – Thereafter, issuance of instructions by the State Government that posts of Panchayat Teachers and Block Teachers not borne on the service of the Government, thus not within the jurisdiction of the Compassionate Appointment Committee to recommend appointments to those posts – Writ petition by respondents seeking mandamus for their appointment on a compassionate basis to posts under the control of the State Government – Allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court – Subsequently, issuance of instructions by the State Government that the Committee could make compassionate appointments to the posts of panchayat teachers/block teachers/town teachers – Division Bench upheld the order of the Single Judge – On appeal, held: High Court erred in directing the State Government to appoint the respondents in its regular service despite the fact that their appointments were made after the 2006 Rules were brought into force – Their case would be governed by the 2006 Rules – Respondents having accepted their appointments as Nagar Shikshaks, it was not open to them to assert, that they should be appointed in the service of the State Government – Also, no executive instruction could have superseded the Rules – Thus, the order of the High Court set aside, however, liberty granted to respondents to approach the State Government for suitable relief. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 With the enforcement of the Bihar Municipal Body Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006, Rule 10 governs the appointment of Nagar Shikshaks on compassionate grounds. The respondents were appointed on 12 April 2008 and 19 August 2008, after the enforcement of the 2006 Rules. Their appointments were in terms of Rule 10 of the 2006 Rules. The respondents accepted the appointments. The Single Judge, in placing reliance on the instruction dated 17 October 2008, failed to notice the 2006 Rules. The Division Bench was of the view that withdrawal of the instruction dated 17 October 2008 by the subsequent instruction dated 22 June 2009 would not obviate compliance with the mandamus issued by the Single Judge on 15 May 2009. The Division Bench ignored the fact that both the respondents were appointed in terms of Rule 10 of the 2006 Rules. Having accepted the appointment, it was not open to them to assert, as they did, that they should be appointed in the service of the Government of Bihar. Moreover, no executive instruction could have superseded the rules. [Para 9] [1186-G-H; 1187-A-B]
1.2 In the instant case the respondents have been appointed after 1 July 2006. Their case would hence be governed by the 2006 Rules. The observations contained in the decision of the Division Bench in Mukesh’s case that the appellants who were appointed after 01.07.2006, the date on which the Rules came into the force, are not entitled to claim appointment on regular pay scales will apply to the respondents in the instant case. The High Court was manifestly in error in directing the Government of Bihar to appoint the respondents in its regular service despite the fact that their appointments were made after the 2006 Rules were brought into force. The respondents duly accepted their appointments as Nagar Shikshaks. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to approach the State Government for suitable relief in terms of the orders passed in Special Leave Petition (C) No 29655 of 2010 and in the same terms as ordered by this Court in its judgment in Mukesh’s case. The judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. [Paras 11, 12] [1189-A-C]
Mukesh v State of Bihar (2017) 5 SCC 383 - relied on. Vishwanath Pandey v State of Bihar (2013) 10 SCC
545 ; State of Bihar v Pooja Mishra SLP(C) No. 029453 of 2015 ; State of Bihar v Sanjay Kumar SLP(C) No. 038376 of 2016 – 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.