Supreme Court grants relief: Ruled in favor of UP teachers denied salary over alleged appointment irregularities
#Supremecourt #Civil #appointment #court #salary #judgement Radhey Shyam Yadav & Anr. Etc. Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
Case Title- Radhey Shyam Yadav & Anr. Etc. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors..
Case Number- Civil Appeal Nos.20-21 Of 2024 (Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 3877-3878 Of 2022)
Dated On- 03.01.2024
Quorum- Hon’ble Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Hon’ble Justice J.K. Maheshwari
FACTS OF THE CASE
The School started with one post of Head Master, four posts of Assistant Teacher, three posts of Peon and one post of Clerk. Two posts of Assistant Teacher were increased, raising the sanctioned strength of Assistant Teacher to six. Seven out of the twelve applicants, including the three appellants herein, participated in the interview of appointment of teachers and they got selected. Radhey Shyam Yadav, Lal Chandra Kharwar and Ravindra Nath Yadav are the three appellants. From October, 2005, abruptly their salaries were stopped. They moved the High Court for redressal. In the writ petitions, the prayer was for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the arrears of salary. since the selection process was not fair, being based on a forged letter, the candidates who were selected in the selection process are not entitled to be appointed and retained on the post of Assistant Teacher. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench declined them relief. Aggrieved, they are before us in these Appeals.
LEGAL PROVISION
Article 136 of Indian Constitution
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
It was contended that there was no fault on the part of the appellants and for any wrong computation of vacancy, the appellants ought not to be prejudiced. The State admittedly does not dispute that two vacancies were, in fact, created and that if at all there was any manipulation, it was at the level of the School. In the absence of any blameworthy conduct attributed to the appellants, they ought not to be prejudiced after serving the School for very long. According to the appellants, they were continuously teaching till 30.03.2016 by entering their names in a separate register. However, according to the State, from October, 2005 their salaries have been stopped.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The learned counsel contended that where there was fraud, the whole selection process shall be vitiated. Learned counsel submitted that there was no case warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The court analyzed that There is not an iota of material to demonstrate how the appellants, who were applicants were guilty of colluding in the manipulation. In the F.I.R. lodged by the State on also, there is no allegation against the appellants or any other applicants and only two persons were named in that F.I.R. 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. The court allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment of the Tribunal and the High Court and held that the irregularities were not confined to acts of malpractice or unfair means on the part of specific group of persons. The court set aside the High court judgement and also directed the state to pay 50% of the back wages to the appellant.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Shreyasi Ghatak
