The case revolved around the Director of Education (Basic) sanctioning two Assistant Teacher positions for a school. However, the school’s manager, with permission from the District Basic Education Officer (DBEO), advertised three positions and subsequently formed a Selection Committee that appointed the appellants in 1999.
The State claimed collusion between the school’s management and the teachers, leading to forged documents. Both a Single Bench and a Division Bench of the High Court ruled against the teachers, stating the entire selection process should be annulled.
Undeterred, the appellants approached the Supreme Court, emphasizing their lengthy service and claiming innocence. The Court, after careful consideration, rejected the State’s argument of fraud and found no evidence of guilt on the part of the teachers.
Citing precedents such as Chief Engineer, M.S.E.B. and Another v. Suresh Raghunath Bhokare and Vivek Kaisth and Anr. v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., the Bench emphasized that the teachers had no blameworthy conduct. The Court observed, “Enormous prejudice would also occur to them” if relief was denied.
Highlighting the lack of proof against the teachers, the Court directed the State to pay the appellants’ salaries from the date of appointment until January 2002 in full. For the period from October 2005 to the date of the judgment, the State was instructed to pay 50% of the backwages. Consequential service benefits were also granted, and the teachers were declared to be in continuous service.
The Court, recognizing the need for justice, allowed the State to issue a show-cause notice to the school’s management and partially recover arrears from them. The State was given four weeks to comply with the directions, allowing the appellants to resume work within that period.
This landmark decision reinforces the principle that individuals should not bear the brunt of administrative irregularities when they are not complicit in wrongdoing.
