Supreme Court clarifies compassionate appointment rules for Nagar Shikshaks in Bihar: State of Bihar vs. Dilip Kumar (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 18 July 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 711

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Indira Banerjee, J

Can compassionate appointments be claimed as a matter of right, especially when the rules governing such appointments have changed? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of Nagar Shikshaks (town teachers) in Bihar. The core issue revolved around whether the respondents were entitled to appointments under the older government instructions or the newer 2006 Rules. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Indira Banerjee, with the opinion authored by Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.

Case Background

The father of the first respondent, Dilip Kumar, was an Assistant Teacher in a primary school and died while in service on 7 May 2006. Similarly, the mother of the second respondent, whose name is not mentioned in the judgment, was also an Assistant Teacher in a primary school and passed away on 9 September 2006. Both respondents applied for compassionate appointment, seeking employment due to the deaths of their parents while in service. The District Compassionate Appointment Committee (DCAC) considered their requests on 25 January 2008 and 27 June 2008.

On 12 April 2008, Dilip Kumar was offered a position as a Nagar Shikshak under Rule 10 of the Bihar Municipal Body Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. The second respondent received a similar offer on 19 August 2008, also as a Nagar Shikshak, based on the DCAC’s recommendation. However, the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department of the Government of Bihar issued an instruction on 17 October 2008, stating that Panchayat Teachers and Block Teachers were not government employees and thus, the DCAC could not recommend appointments to these posts.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondents filed writ petitions in the High Court of Judicature at Patna, arguing that their appointments as Nagar Shikshaks did not provide them with regular government pay scales, which they believed was contrary to the government instruction of 17 October 2008. A Single Judge of the High Court agreed with the respondents and directed that the DCAC recommendations be implemented as per the 17 October 2008 instruction. However, the State Government issued a new instruction on 22 June 2009, clarifying that compassionate appointments could be made to the posts of panchayat teachers, block teachers, and town teachers under the 2006 Rules.

The State appealed the Single Judge’s decision, but a Division Bench of the High Court upheld the Single Judge’s order, stating that the deaths occurred before the 2006 Rules were enforced, and the 17 October 2008 circular mandated appointments to government posts. The High Court also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Vishwanath Pandey v. State of Bihar, which affirmed that appointments should be made as teachers under the government if the death occurred before the 2006 Rules. The State of Bihar then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the Bihar Municipal Body Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (referred to as “2006 Rules”). Rule 3 of the 2006 Rules categorizes elementary teachers into:

• Nagar Shikshak (Trained)
• Nagar Shikshak (Untrained)

Rule 10 of the 2006 Rules specifically addresses compassionate appointments, stating:

“10. Appointment on compassionate ground :- The employment may be made of the dependents of teaching/ non-teaching employees on compassionate ground as per determined qualification on the post of Town Teacher (Trained) and Town Teacher (Un-Trained) against the available vacancies, if he gives manifestly his consent for this. The appointment may be made by aforesaid Committee in the light of other conditions concerned with appointment on compassionate ground by the Personnel Department of Government. After the employment, un-trained dependents shall acquire training within maximum 6 years.”

Rule 20 of the 2006 Rules deals with repeal and savings, stating:

“20. Repeal & Saving :- (i) From the date of enforcement of this Rules, all the previous Rules, Resolutions, Orders and Instructions regarding the employment of Primary Teachers/ Physical Teachers in urban area shall be deemed repealed. (ii) But notwithstanding this repeal no effect shall be made on any earlier Rules, Resolution, Order, Instruction etc. regarding the salary etc. and Service Conditions of the teachers.”

The court also considered the government instruction dated 17 October 2008, which stated that Panchayat Teachers and Block Teachers were not government employees and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the DCAC for compassionate appointments. The subsequent instruction of 22 June 2009 clarified that compassionate appointments could be made to the posts of panchayat teachers, block teachers, and town teachers.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (State of Bihar):

• The 2006 Rules govern compassionate appointments, and Rule 10 specifically allows for the appointment of Nagar Shikshaks on compassionate grounds.
• Rule 20 supersedes all previous rules, resolutions, orders, and instructions.
• The respondents consented to their appointments as Nagar Shikshaks and joined the posts accordingly.
• The offers of appointment as Nagar Shikshaks were made before the instruction dated 17 October 2008.
• The appointments were made in accordance with the 2006 Rules, and therefore the High Court was not justified in directing the state to take over their services.
• The Supreme Court judgment in Mukesh v. State of Bihar distinguished the case of Vishwanath Pandey, stating that appointments made after 1 July 2006, should be governed by the 2006 Rules.

Arguments by the Respondents (Dilip Kumar and Anr):

• The respondents argued that the High Court’s decision was correct because the deaths of their parents occurred before the 2006 Rules were enforced.
• The instruction dated 17 October 2008 clarified that compassionate appointments should be made to posts in the service of the government.
• The instruction dated 22 June 2009, which recalled the earlier instruction, would not undo the mandamus issued by the Single Judge.
• The respondents relied on the Supreme Court’s previous decisions in State of Bihar v. Pooja Mishra and State of Bihar v. Sanjay Kumar, where the court dismissed similar appeals by the State.
• The respondents contended that the posts of Nagar Shikshak were not government posts with regular pay scales, but fixed emoluments.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

• Whether the compassionate appointments of the respondents as Nagar Shikshaks should be governed by the 2006 Rules or by previous government instructions.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Vishwanath Pandey v. State of Bihar [(2013) 10 SCC 545] – The High Court relied on this case, where the Supreme Court had affirmed the view that if the death of the employee occurred before the 2006 Rules, the appointment had to be made as a teacher under the government.
• Mukesh v. State of Bihar [(2017) 5 SCC 383] – This case distinguished Vishwanath Pandey, stating that appointments made after 1 July 2006, should be governed by the 2006 Rules. The Supreme Court in this case held that compassionate appointments are not a source of recruitment and are made to provide succour to the family of an employee who dies in harness.
• State of Bihar v Pooja Mishra [SLP(C) No. 029453 of 2015] – The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition against the decision of the Patna High Court.
• State of Bihar v Sanjay Kumar [SLP(C) No. 038376 of 2016] – The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition against the decision of the Patna High Court.
• State of Bihar and Others v. Rajeev Ran Vijay Kumar [(2010) 3 PLJR 294 (FB)] – A Full Bench of the Patna High Court held that dependents of deceased Government employees do not have a legal right to be appointed in Government posts. Their appointments on compassionate grounds shall be in accordance with Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006.

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Rule 3 of the Bihar Municipal Body Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 – Categorizes elementary teachers into Nagar Shikshak (Trained) and Nagar Shikshak (Untrained).
• Rule 10 of the Bihar Municipal Body Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 – Deals with appointment on compassionate grounds for dependents of teaching/non-teaching employees on the post of Town Teacher (Trained) and Town Teacher (Un-Trained).
• Rule 20 of the Bihar Municipal Body Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 – Contains the repeal and savings provision, stating that previous rules and instructions regarding employment of primary teachers are repealed, but not the rules regarding salary and service conditions.

Authority Analysis

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Vishwanath Pandey v. State of Bihar [(2013) 10 SCC 545] – *The Court distinguished this case, stating that it did not apply to appointments made after 1 July 2006.*
• Mukesh v. State of Bihar [(2017) 5 SCC 383] – *The Court followed this case, which clarified that appointments made after 1 July 2006, should be governed by the 2006 Rules.*
• State of Bihar v Pooja Mishra [SLP(C) No. 029453 of 2015] – *The Court did not follow this, stating that the dismissal of the SLP did not set a precedent.*
• State of Bihar v Sanjay Kumar [SLP(C) No. 038376 of 2016] – *The Court did not follow this, stating that the dismissal of the SLP did not set a precedent.*
• State of Bihar and Others v. Rajeev Ran Vijay Kumar [(2010) 3 PLJR 294 (FB)] – *The Court followed this, citing the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court which held that appointments on compassionate grounds shall be in accordance with Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006.*

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the respondents were appointed after the 2006 Rules came into force. The Court emphasized that the 2006 Rules specifically govern the appointment of Nagar Shikshaks on compassionate grounds and that these rules supersede previous instructions. The Court also relied on its previous judgment in Mukesh v. State of Bihar, which clarified that appointments made after 1 July 2006, should be governed by the 2006 Rules. The Court noted that the respondents had accepted their appointments as Nagar Shikshaks and were therefore bound by the terms of their appointment.

The Court rejected the argument that the deaths of the respondents’ parents occurring before the 2006 Rules should be the determining factor. Instead, the Court focused on the date of appointment. The Court also held that the High Court’s reliance on the instruction dated 17 October 2008, was misplaced, as this instruction was superseded by the 2006 Rules. The Court further clarified that the dismissal of previous Special Leave Petitions did not set a precedent, especially in light of the subsequent judgment in Mukesh.

The Court granted liberty to the respondents to approach the State Government for suitable relief, in line with the directions given in Mukesh.

Sentiment Analysis

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court indicates that the court’s decision was primarily driven by the following:

Ratio Analysis

The ratio of fact to law in this case is as follows:

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Compassionate appointments of Nagar Shikshaks in Bihar are governed by the Bihar Municipal Body Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006, if the appointments were made after 1 July 2006.
• The date of appointment is the crucial factor, not the date of death of the employee.
• The 2006 Rules supersede previous government instructions regarding the employment of primary teachers in urban areas.
• Dismissal of Special Leave Petitions does not set a precedent, especially when a subsequent judgment clarifies the legal position.
• Those appointed as Nagar Shikshaks under the 2006 Rules cannot claim appointments in regular government service.

Directions

The Supreme Court granted liberty 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 dated 3 April 2017 in Mukesh.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that compassionate appointments of Nagar Shikshaks made after 1 July 2006, are governed by the Bihar Municipal Body Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. This judgment clarifies the legal position and settles the conflict between previous government instructions and the 2006 Rules. It also reaffirms the principle established in Mukesh v. State of Bihar, distinguishing the applicability of the 2006 Rules from the earlier judgment in Vishwanath Pandey.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the State of Bihar, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the compassionate appointments of the respondents as Nagar Shikshaks were governed by the 2006 Rules, as the appointments were made after the rules came into force. The Court clarified that the 2006 Rules supersede previous government instructions and that the respondents, having accepted their appointments as Nagar Shikshaks, could not claim appointments in regular government service. The Court, however, granted liberty to the respondents to approach the State Government for suitable relief.